| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Toppr Tenali <shreeharish271203(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Clarify base backups and local pg_wal recycling |
| Date: | 2026-09-30 13:13:07 |
| Message-ID: | de5e2353662f14bd127ab4dcbe15d8dad8eb566b.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, 2026-09-29 at 21:03 +0530, Toppr Tenali wrote:
> I would like to suggest a clarification to the PostgreSQL documentation regarding base
> backups and local WAL recycling.
>
> The documentation explains separately that:
>
> - archived WAL required by a base backup can eventually be deleted once that backup
> is safely archived
I'd say that is wrong - you need to *retain* the WAL required to recover a backup,
otherwise you cannot restore it. Where in the documentation do you see that sentence?
> - WAL segments in pg_wal can be recycled or removed after they are no longer needed
> and, when archiving is enabled, have been successfully archived.
Right, but you forgot that replication slots will also keep PostgreSQL from
deleting WAL segments.
> 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.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-09-30 13:30:28 | Re: Clarify base backups and local pg_wal recycling |
| Previous Message | Matemática A3K | 2026-09-30 12:26:13 | Re: [Minor] Correctness in sentence in "Aggregate Functions" |