Horton

Re: post-freeze damage control

Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Stefan Fercot <stefan.fercot@protonmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-04-11T00:23:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. revert: Transform OR clauses to ANY expression

  2. Fix incorrect calculation in BlockRefTableEntryGetBlocks.

>
> > 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