From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(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: | 2005-02-20 14:25:46 |
Message-ID: | 200502200925.46525.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 20 February 2005 00:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
> > To be fair to Mark, there does seem to be an increasing number of
> > reports of this issue. In spite of the in-the-works fix for 8.1, it
> > would be a pity to see customers losing data from xid wrap-around.
>
> The question is whether we are willing to back-patch a fairly large
> amount of not-very-well-tested code into 8.0. See
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-02/msg00123.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-02/msg00127.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-02/msg00131.php
>
> I personally don't think it's worth the risk. The code works well
> enough to commit to development tip, but it's fundamentally alpha
> quality code.
>
I would lean away from putting it in 8.0, however aren't we planning an 8.0.x
release that will have a beta and/or rc testing for arc related changes? If
so I might be open to putting it in that release (though the bits requiring
initdb are a killer).
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2005-02-20 14:39:20 | Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around |
Previous Message | pgsql | 2005-02-20 13:10:20 | Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around |