Manual-only failover would still be a big step forward—just as my own 2¢.
Many people can tolerate the site itself being down for 18 hours, without being able to stomach that corresponding amount of data loss, 
…
Maybe there would need to be an entire subsection pointing out the subtle distinctions, though, given that the platform (probably wisely) always nudges people toward two machines (as mentioned at the top)…
| variant | data durability | automatic failover | pitr | dist. reads | lightweight workers‡ | horizontally scaled workers | rails-friendly |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SQLite (only) | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| SQLite + Litestream | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Pending |
| SQLite + Litestream + neo-standby† | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Pending |
| SQLite + app-level gossip replication | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Very No? |
| LiteFS | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No* | No* |
| LiteFS + LiteFS Backup | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No* | No* |
†The existing standby mechanism is restricted to machines without services, as I understand it.
‡All workers fitting on the same Machine as the main web app instance.
*Not impossible, just pretty far outside what people seem to expect from Rails idioms.