Why you don't need PITR and incremental backups for most PostgreSQL databases in 2026

PostgreSQL backup strategies have evolved dramatically over the past decade. Yet many teams still default to complex setups involving Point-in-Time Recovery (PITR) and incremental backups. These tools were designed for an era when self-hosted databases were the only option.

In 2026, managed cloud databases dominate the landscape. For most projects, this complexity is unnecessary overhead that adds maintenance burden without meaningful benefit.

This article examines why sophisticated tools like pgBackRest and WAL-G may not be necessary for your specific use case. They're powerful and well-designed for their intended audiences. But understanding when you actually need these capabilities will save your team significant time and reduce operational complexity.

Understanding the backup landscape

Before diving into why complex backup strategies are often unnecessary, let's clarify what each backup type provides. The terminology can be confusing. Misconceptions about different approaches lead teams to over-engineer their backup infrastructure.

Logical backups use PostgreSQL's own export capabilities (pg_dump) to create portable SQL representations of your data. They're version-independent and platform-agnostic. You can selectively restore individual tables or schemas.

Physical backups copy PostgreSQL's actual data files from disk. This creates an exact binary replica of your database cluster at a specific moment.

Incremental backups with PITR combine physical base backups with continuous Write-Ahead Log (WAL) archiving. This allows recovery to any point in time between backups — down to specific transactions if needed.

Backup Type	What It Captures	Recovery Granularity	Setup Complexity
Logical (pg_dump)	SQL representation	Full backup points only	Low
Physical	Binary file copy	Full backup points only	Medium
Incremental + PITR	Base + WAL stream	Any point in time	High

The allure of PITR is obvious. Who wouldn't want the ability to recover to any second? But this capability comes with significant operational costs. Most projects don't need to pay them.

The real cost of PITR and incremental backups

Implementing PITR properly isn't just about installing pgBackRest or WAL-G. It requires ongoing operational commitment that many teams underestimate. The hidden costs accumulate quickly. They often exceed the value provided for typical workloads.

Setting up WAL archiving requires either physical access to the database server's disk or configuring streaming replication. For managed cloud databases, external PITR tools simply cannot access the necessary infrastructure. You cannot configure archive_command on Amazon RDS, Google Cloud SQL, Azure Database for PostgreSQL or any other managed offering.

• Infrastructure requirements — Physical disk access or replication slots consume server resources and network bandwidth
• Configuration complexity — WAL archiving, retention policies and recovery procedures require careful tuning
• Storage costs — Continuous WAL streaming generates significant storage volume, especially for write-heavy databases
• Recovery complexity — PITR restoration is not a one-click operation; it requires specifying exact recovery targets and careful verification
• Testing burden — PITR recovery procedures must be regularly tested to ensure they work when needed

Consider a 100 GB database with moderate write activity. WAL archiving can easily generate 50-100 GB of additional storage per day. Over a week, that's 350-700 GB of WAL files. All for second-by-second recovery that most projects will never need.

Why cloud managed databases changed everything

The database landscape has transformed fundamentally over the past decade. In 2026, most PostgreSQL databases run on managed cloud platforms with built-in backup capabilities.

pgBackRest and WAL-G remain excellent solutions for self-hosted databases. But many teams using managed databases may find simpler alternatives sufficient.

AWS RDS, Google Cloud SQL, Azure Database for PostgreSQL, DigitalOcean Managed Databases and Supabase all include automatic incremental backups. These backups happen transparently. They require zero configuration. They provide recovery capabilities that meet or exceed what most projects need.

Cloud Provider	Built-in PITR	Retention Options	Additional Cost
AWS RDS	Yes, up to 35 days	1-35 days configurable	Included in pricing
Google Cloud SQL	Yes, up to 365 days	7-365 days configurable	Storage costs only
Azure PostgreSQL	Yes, up to 35 days	7-35 days configurable	Included in pricing
DigitalOcean	Yes, 7 days	7 days fixed	Included in pricing
Supabase	Yes, varies by plan	Plan-dependent	Included in pricing

Even cloud providers don't typically allow recovery to an exact second. Recovery granularity is usually measured in minutes, not seconds. If the clouds acknowledge that transaction-level precision is unnecessary for millions of customers, why would your project need it?

When logical backups are enough

For most PostgreSQL databases, logical backups using pg_dump provide completely adequate protection. The key is matching backup frequency to your actual Recovery Point Objective (RPO). That's the maximum amount of data loss your business can tolerate.

Consider realistic scenarios. If your backup runs hourly and disaster strikes, you lose at most one hour of data. For most applications — SaaS products, internal tools, e-commerce platforms, content management systems — an hour of data loss is entirely acceptable. The business impact is minimal. It's often recoverable through other means like user re-entry, payment processor logs or audit trails.

• Small databases (under 10 GB) — Hourly logical backups are fast and provide excellent granularity
• Medium databases (10-100 GB) — Daily backups with the option for more frequent off-peak snapshots
• Large databases (100+ GB) — Daily backups are sufficient; if you need more frequent protection, you're likely in the 1% that needs specialized tooling

The scenarios where second-by-second recovery matters are extremely narrow. Financial systems with regulatory requirements. Real-time trading platforms. Infrastructure where even minutes of data loss translate to significant monetary damage. If you're not operating in these domains, PITR is solving a problem you don't have.

The 1% that actually needs PITR

To be clear, PITR and incremental backups serve legitimate purposes for specific use cases. Understanding these scenarios helps determine whether your project falls into this category. For most readers, it won't.

Banks and financial institutions face regulatory requirements mandating transaction-level recovery capabilities. A missing transaction could mean compliance violations or financial discrepancies. For these organizations, the operational overhead of PITR is a necessary cost of doing business.

Managed database providers themselves need PITR to offer backup services to their customers. Building a database-as-a-service platform requires sophisticated backup tooling. But you're not building a managed database service — you're using one.

• Regulatory compliance — Financial services, healthcare with specific retention requirements
• Multi-terabyte databases — Where logical backup times become impractical
• Managed database providers — Building backup services for customers
• Mission-critical real-time systems — Where minutes of data loss have severe consequences

For these use cases, tools like pgBackRest and WAL-G are excellent choices. They're developed by PostgreSQL experts specifically for these demanding requirements. They represent the gold standard for physical backup management. They've earned their reputation through years of reliable service in production environments. But if your project doesn't fall into these categories, simpler solutions may serve you equally well.

A practical backup strategy for 2026

Most projects should adopt a simpler approach. Leverage both cloud provider capabilities and targeted logical backups. This strategy provides robust protection without unnecessary complexity.

For databases on managed cloud platforms, rely on the provider's built-in incremental backups for primary disaster recovery. These backups happen automatically. They require no maintenance. They cover common failure scenarios. Supplement with weekly logical backups stored externally. This provides insurance against cloud provider issues and enables long-term archival.

For self-hosted databases, establish a logical backup schedule appropriate to your RPO:

• Hourly backups — For applications where an hour of data loss is the maximum acceptable
• Every 6 hours — Balances protection with backup storage and execution time
• Daily backups — Sufficient for most internal tools and applications with lower data velocity

PostgreSQL backup tools like Postgresus make implementing this strategy straightforward. Postgresus automates backup scheduling. It handles encryption and compression. It supports multiple storage destinations and provides monitoring that ensures backups actually succeed. It delivers the protection most databases need without the complexity of WAL archiving (this is why it is suitable both for self-hosted and managed databases).

The simplicity dividend

Choosing simpler backup strategies pays dividends beyond reduced setup time. Operational simplicity means fewer things that can break. Fewer skills required to maintain the system. Faster incident response when recovery is needed.

Consider the difference in recovery procedures. Restoring from a logical backup involves running pg_restore against an archive file. It's a single command that developers and DBAs can execute confidently.

PITR recovery is different. It requires specifying recovery targets. Potentially editing postgresql.conf. Managing WAL file availability. Careful verification that the recovery reached the intended point. The complexity gap is substantial.

Teams that adopt simpler backup strategies report:

• Faster onboarding — New team members understand the backup system immediately
• More confident recovery — Regular testing is actually performed because it's straightforward
• Lower maintenance burden — No WAL archiving infrastructure to monitor and maintain
• Better reliability — Fewer moving parts means fewer failure modes

The goal of any backup system is successful recovery when disaster strikes. Complexity is the enemy of reliability. A simple system that the team understands and tests regularly beats a sophisticated system that sits untested because recovery procedures are too complex to practice.

Conclusion

The PostgreSQL backup ecosystem in 2026 looks very different from a decade ago. Managed cloud databases provide built-in incremental backups. For most scenarios, external PITR tooling is unnecessary.

For the 99% of databases that don't require transaction-level recovery precision, logical backups offer simpler, more maintainable protection. They match actual business requirements.

Tools like pgBackRest and WAL-G remain excellent choices for their intended audiences. DBAs managing multi-terabyte self-hosted databases. Organizations with regulatory compliance requirements. Teams building managed database platforms. These are sophisticated, battle-tested tools that excel in demanding environments.

For teams outside these use cases, simpler approaches provide the right balance. Protection and operational simplicity — exactly what most PostgreSQL databases actually need.