On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:08 PM Christophe Pettus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Daniel Farina <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'd write an out-of-band deleter that has the behavior you want. Another > option would be to implement a "delete" subcommand variant that deletes > specific backups that you could script around. It's little more than a > pagination + delete, I'd commit to to WAL-E as it seems handy. > > Thanks! Yes, I think that doing something with more sophisticated time > expressions is probably the way forward. I'll submit a pull request when I > have something! > This is not what I intended to convey. While a time expression that is pleasingly simple in implementation and powerful in application would be an interesting change in its own right, I was suggesting you'd have to write your own "out of band" deleter. I was suggesting that WAL-E could be a better subroutine of an ad-hoc program you'd write to get the retention policy you would want, with room for modification. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wal-e" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
