Horton

Re: post-freeze damage control

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

View thread
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
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: 2024-04-10T23:36:11Z
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 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