| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| 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: | 2024-04-10 23:36:11 |
| Message-ID: | e61e8b08-e67e-4d45-9e66-1eaa82d49f16@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/10/24 09:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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?
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).
Regards,
-David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2024-04-11 00:01:00 | Re: Add notes to pg_combinebackup docs |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-04-10 23:03:08 | Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer |