| From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruno Wolff III" <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
| Cc: | lsunley(at)mb(dot)sympatico(dot)ca, "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, "Russell Smith" <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around |
| Date: | 2005-02-19 23:04:42 |
| Message-ID: | 16635.24.91.171.78.1108854282.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 13:35:25 -0500,
> lsunley(at)mb(dot)sympatico(dot)ca wrote:
>>
>> The catastrophic failure of the database because a maintenence function
>> is
>> not performed is a problem with the software, not with the people using
>> it.
>
> There doesn't seem to be disagreement that something should be done going
> forward.
>
> The disagreement sems to be what effort should be made in back porting
> fixes to previous versions.
Now, lets imagine PostgreSQL is being developed by a large company. QA
announces it has found a bug that will cause all the users data to
disappear if they don't run a maintenence program correctly. Vacuuming one
or two tables is not enough, you have to vacuum all tables in all
databases.
This bug would get marked as a critical error and a full scale effort
would be made to contact previous users to upgrade or check their
procedures.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-02-19 23:17:55 | Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around |
| Previous Message | pgsql | 2005-02-19 21:49:03 | Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around |