| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stefan Fercot <stefan(dot)fercot(at)protonmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: post-freeze damage control |
| Date: | 2024-04-09 23:50:56 |
| Message-ID: | ZhXUYBXTWvF4OaPm@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-INCREMENTAL-BACKUP
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-04-09 23:57:20 | Re: Fixup some StringInfo usages |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-09 23:44:03 | Re: Speed up clean meson builds by ~25% |