> > > 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
