Greetings,
* Tim (timfosho@gmail.com) wrote:
> > However, you can use repo-retention-archive and
> > repo-retention-archive-type to change this behavior, see
> >
> > https://pgbackrest.org/configuration.html#section-repository/option-repo-retention-archive
> > .
> > Basically, if you need to keep a number of full backups for compliance
> > you can set repo-retention-archive-type=full and
> > repo-retention-archive-type=1 in that repo and WAL in between the
> > backups will only be kept after the last backup. WAL required to make
> > backups consistent is always kept until the backup expires.
>
> So as I understand it, it would keep WALs from the most current backup up
> to the most current WALs.
> In my case, the only purpose of this 2nd repo is to keep monthly backups
> that are 2-6 months old (and occasionally test restores)
> for legal purposes.
> The most recent backup in this repo would still be 2 months old, so it
> would be keeping an unnecessary 2 months of WALs.
You don't need to have the second repo be enabled all the time, just
enable it when you do the next full backup into the new repo, and
disable it afterwards, so you don't continue to push WAL to it.
> We've had requests for repo-retention-archive-type=0, i.e. only archive
> > WAL during a backup, but we have not had time to implement that. Some
> > users have implemented a work-around based on checking the backup lock.
> > There is an issue that describes the method but I was not able to find
> > it after a brief search. This is safer than it sounds because pgbackrest
> > will check that all WAL required to make the backup consistent reached
> > the archive. So, if the wrapper is broken you'll get errors.
>
> I'm guessing you're referring to: optional wal archiving · Issue #900 ·
> pgbackrest/pgbackrest (github.com)
> <https://github.com/pgbackrest/pgbackrest/issues/900>,
This was from before we had multi-repo support and I'd think simply
enabling/disabling that second repo would be the simpler approach.
I see that it sounds like you're going to take a look at trying that
approach- would be great to get your feedback on how hard it was and how
well it did or didn't work out.
Thanks,
Stephen
