Re: PITR Dead horse?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolai Tufar [mailto:ntufar(at)pisem(dot)net]
> Sent: 05 February 2004 17:35
> To: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PITR Dead horse?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Page [mailto:dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:02 AM
> > To: ntufar(at)pisem(dot)net; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PITR Dead horse?
> > Of course, but I would argue that my claim that PostgreSQL
> is reliable
> > is backed up by the lack of people posting messages like 'we had a
> > powercut and now my DB is hosed'.
>
> It's not like that. It's more like 'what will happen if we
> had a powercut/ disk failure/cpu failure/memory failure, etc,
> etc.' and that answer I have to give is 'why, there is PITR
> of course!'. No other answer will pass in enterprise world.
> Those people are not open-minded, they'd rather be safe than sorry.

Ahh, that's not quite what I thought you meant. It sounded like you were
questioning the reliability of PostgreSQL, not it's ability to be
recovered to point of failure.

> > Do they have specific problems with the reliability of PostgreSQL
> then?
> > Perhaps you could post details of how things have gone
> wrong for them
> > (assuming you haven't already - I don't recall anything on -hackers
> > recently).
>
> Nothing remarkable. PostgreSQL just works. Bu as I said
> before, In enterprise world, good sleep at night is treasured
> above all.

My SQL2K servers give me far more sleepless nights than PostgreSQL ever
did!

Regards, Dave.