Re: why not kill -9 postmaster

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)007Marketing(dot)com>
Cc: Andreas Seltenreich <andreas+pg(at)gate450(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why not kill -9 postmaster
Date: 2006-10-20 13:29:54
Message-ID: 20061020132954.GD27869@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Shane Ambler wrote:

> The one thing worse than kill -9 the postmaster is pulling the power
> cord out of the server. Which is what makes UPS's so good.
>
> If your server is changing the data file on disk and you pull the power
> cord, what chance do you expect of reading that data file again?

1. That's what we have WAL for. The only thing that can really kill
you is the use of non-battery-backed write cache.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Seltenreich 2006-10-20 13:32:05 Re: c function returning high resolution timestamp
Previous Message Shane Ambler 2006-10-20 13:26:09 Re: why not kill -9 postmaster