> 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.