On 8/6/15 12:49 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> 2) If a WAL segment is in fact required for the backed up DB to >> > start, why would pg_basebackup not include those by default? To >> > not do so, doesn't create a backup file, just in this case, a >> > tarball that's worthless. > ... unless you are archiving the WAL to somewhere that it will be > kept long enough to be usable for such purposes. If you are (and I > highly recommend that you do so), including WAL in the base backup > is a waste of both bandwidth and storage space. This is arguably an artifact of the evolution of replication in PostgreSQL. You used to do tar backup + archiving, then you could switch to pg_basebackup + archiving, and nowadays you could switch to pg_basebackup without archiving, but the default behavior of pg_basebackup still caters to the old case. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
