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