| From: | Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "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: | 2024-04-11 00:23:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAKPRjUMVH+YDxEUdHqBPQov9oiDek=bJMAKLQotPYfVZ=i3AKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> > 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).
>
>
The extensive Beta process we have can be used to build confidence we need
in a feature that has extensive review and currently has no known issues or
outstanding objections.
> Regards,
> -David
>
>
>
--
Thomas John Kincaid
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-11 00:23:34 | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2024-04-11 00:01:00 | Re: Add notes to pg_combinebackup docs |