Greetings,
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@cybertec.at) wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 05:24 +0000, osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > > > > ereport(WARNING,
> > > > > (errmsg("WAL was generated with wal_level=minimal, data may
> > > > > be missing"),
> > > > > errhint("This happens if you temporarily set
> > > > > wal_level=minimal without taking a new base backup.")));
> > > > > There's definitely a question about if a WARNING there is really
> > > > > sufficient or not, considering that you could end up with 'logged'
> > > > > tables on the replica that are missing data, but I'm not sure that
> > > > > inventing a new, independent, mechanism for checking WAL level
> > > > > changes makes
> > > > sense.
> > >
> > > I don't know why WARNING was chosen. I think it should be FATAL,
> > > resulting in the standby shutdown, disabling restarting it, and urging the user
> > > to rebuild the standby. (I guess that's overreaction because the user may
> > > not perform operations that lack WAL while wal_level is minimal.)
> >
> > Yeah, I agree that WARNING is not sufficient.
>
> I missed that this is only a warning when I looked at it before.
> Yes, it should be a fatal error.
Yeah, the more that I think about it, the more that I tend to agree with
this. Does anyone want to argue against changing this into a FATAL..?
Thanks,
Stephen
