On 4/10/24 09:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 09:29:38AM +1000, David Steele wrote:
Even so, only keeping WAL for the last backup is a dangerous move in any
case. Lots of things can happen to a backup (other than bugs in the
software) so keeping WAL back to the last full (or for all backups) is
always an excellent idea.
Yeah, that's an excellent practive, but is why I'm less worried for
this feature. The docs at [1] caution about "not to remove earlier
backups if they might be needed when restoring later incremental
backups". Like Alvaro said, should we insist a bit more about the WAL
retention part in this section of the docs, down to the last full
backup?
I think that would make sense in general. But if we are doing it because
we lack confidence in the incremental backup feature maybe that's a sign
that the feature should be released as experimental (or not released at
all).
Regards,
-David
