The symmetrisation postulate is known for stating that, in nature, particles have either completely symmetric or completely antisymmetric wave functions. According to these postulate, these states are thought to be sufficient do describe all possible systems of identical particles.

However, in Landau Lifshitz Quantum Mechanics, in the first page of Chapter IX - Identity of Particles, he comes to the same conclusion without needing to state any ad-hoc postulate.

It goes like this: Let $\psi(\xi\_1,\xi\_2)$ be the wave function of the system, $\xi\_1$ and $\xi\_2$ denoting the three coordinates and spin projection for each particle. As a result of interchanging the two particles, the wave function can change only by an unimportant phase factor:
$$
\psi(\xi\_1,\xi\_2)=e^{i\alpha}\psi(\xi\_2,\xi\_1)
$$
By repeating the interchange, we return to the original state, while the function $\psi$ is multiplied by $e^{2i\alpha}$. Hence it follows that $e^{2i\alpha}=1$ or $e^{i\alpha}=\pm1$. Thus
$$
\psi(\xi\_1,\xi\_2)=\pm\psi(\xi\_2,\xi\_1)
$$
Thus there are only two possibilities: the wave function is either symmetrical or antisymmetrical. 

It goes on by explaining how to generalize this concept to systems with any number of identical particles, etc.

Im summary, no symmetrisation postulate was ever stated in this rationale. Is "shifting by an unimportant phase factor" a too strong requirement for ensuring identity of particles?