Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) id 1TbEjh-0008Bx-ES
	for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:09:21 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) id 1TbEjd-0000G2-8m
	for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:09:20 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id k11so698144iea.19
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:09:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=Wac9Gu6rFCUsIec0MZWySTYxvEb6ZPGYl32FCxHnI0Y=;
	b=U0pTpGuezJ7GugFZc4VWqtycF4M/2r+KGWf+/ZkGWfT6OWzyo00dwcTJsbaT4JDdCy
	e9DiaASQ+m0MhgwSrQCyM5Kj1+GYXHZHArHSGaZSRFQftMws0+i3kyALefHfhG+4yO15
	yhnKTpXyvNzoBkO6C4u1BNUwc1TvNzflgxX/q0Z/5RBaiH4+scQF4xsePW1yp68ouaV8
	MB+l7Z2RE18n0tGPJ0RQqWGlO8tt/4uMsMS09lfNDQQr72dyOzHwg6G8jo8GBLWWWjCJ
	TSI7EJyH0R+LzbuqMJxL8VaK6RZKl05ieBIX7ejvRLss/pr0EUovuZ9Rmll/QLoepnbH
	6k8Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.0.179 with SMTP id 19mr352783igf.59.1353521356073; Wed, 21
	Nov 2012 10:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.85.82 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:09:15 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAMkU=1xdumQ1FeBR=EJAeagjy1+76L9A5ALzE=Dk+yTA2DOs8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: 8.4 doc bug for "Incrementally Updated Backups"
From: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201211/12
X-Sequence-Number: 7504

Based on J=FCrgen Fuchsberger's experience described on the general
list, I think the following should have been back-patched to 8.4 and
8.3 (assuming it gets a minor update before it EOL) as well, not just
9.0.

In particular, in 8.4 chapter 24.4.5 it says "it will be up to you to
determine how far back you need to keep WAL segment files to have a
recoverable backup"  but it dangerously does not mention that it is
also up to you to construct a backup_label file such that those WAL
segment files will actually get used.



commit 13e6d6c5da184abcdfcfc9874ad17ef09f4ea044
Author: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date:   Wed Aug 25 23:55:54 2010 +0000

    Remove docs for "Incrementally Updated Backups" because it was of
    questionable reliability;  information moved to a wiki:

        http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Incrementally_Updated_Backups

    Backpatch to 9.0.



Cheers,

Jeff