Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. ISTM the real bottom line here is that we have only a weak grasp
>> on how these features will end up being used; or for that matter what
>> the common error scenarios will be. I think that for the time being
>> we should err on the side of being permissive. We can tighten things
>> up and add more nanny-ism in the warnings later on, when we have
>> more field experience.
> Ok, here's a proposed patch. Per discussion, it relaxes the checks in
> pg_start/stop_backup() so that they can be used as long as wal_level >=
> 'archive', even if archiving is disabled.
This patch seems reasonably noncontroversial (except possibly for
message wording, which we can fine-tune later anyway). Please apply.
9.0beta1 is going to get wrapped in only a few hours.
BTW, the documentation for these functions might need a bit of adjustment.
regards, tom lane
