| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Toppr Tenali <shreeharish271203(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarify base backups and local pg_wal recycling |
| Date: | 2026-09-30 13:30:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaSirU_9KXzH=qbHfd75V5KBQnen4m-J8woz0hMZs8MDQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wednesday, September 30, 2026, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-09-29 at 21:03 +0530, Toppr Tenali wrote:
>
> > However, I could not find an explicit statement about whether taking or
> completing a
> > base backup itself affects when WAL segments in the local pg_wal
> directory become
> > eligible for recycling/removal.
> >
> > Could the documentation explicitly clarify this relationship?
>
> I don't think that there is a relationship between WAL recycling and a
> base backup,
> so there is nothing to document.
>
In fact, the wording of -X fetch mode shows the non-linkage quite well.
Likewise -X stream also explains how pg_basebackup provides a behavior to
deal with the noninherent coordination between the two systems.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2026-09-30 20:56:45 | Improve "3.5. Window Functions" tutorial |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2026-09-30 13:13:07 | Re: Clarify base backups and local pg_wal recycling |