Horton

Re: post-freeze damage control

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: "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: 2024-04-09T23:50:56Z
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.

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?

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-INCREMENTAL-BACKUP
--
Michael