| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Felde Norbert <fenor77(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres crash SOS |
| Date: | 2010-06-17 19:48:17 |
| Message-ID: | 24776.1276804097@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 19:27 +0000, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>> (Perhaps more to the point, if they don't have problems, it's likely
>>> because they tell their customers how to configure Windows boxes safely
>>> before the fact. And people who are spending the money for an Oracle
>>> license will heed that advice.)
>>
>> Care was taken in selection of hardware and configuration. Is this different for any database system?
> Yes :) but does it matter?
Sure it matters. The people who are complaining are those who dropped
PG onto some el-cheapo generic PC or other and didn't spend any time
inquiring into things like write cache settings, if indeed they even
know what those are.
It's possible that SQL Server can survive in that kind of environment
because it knows about undocumented Windows hooks that allow it to force
the right things to happen even in a badly-configured machine. It's
also possible that SQL Server gets just as badly hosed as we do.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-06-17 19:56:18 | Re: postgres crash SOS |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-06-17 19:42:01 | Re: postgres crash SOS |