From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] First draft of update announcement |
Date: | 2014-03-18 22:02:15 |
Message-ID: | 29427.1395180135@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Updated per feedback. CC'd to Advocacy now for additional corrections.
A few thoughts:
> The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all
> supported version of the database system, including versions 9.3.4, 9.2.8,
> 9.1.13, 9.0.19, and 8.4.20.
By my count, 9.0.17 and 8.4.21 are the correct minor numbers.
> The data corruption issue in PostgreSQL 9.3 affects binary replication
> standbys, servers being recovered from point-in-time-recovery backup, and
> standalone servers which recover from a system crash. The bug causes rows
> to vanish from indexes during recovery due to timing issues with updating
> locks.
Per earlier discussion, I think "vanish from indexes" is a bad choice of
wording here: it will make people think they can recover by REINDEXing,
which is not the case. I haven't got a great alternative wording though;
best I can do offhand is "causes table rows to become unreachable by
index scans", which lacks punch.
Also, although this isn't too important to users, the problem isn't a
"timing issue". How about "... during recovery due to incorrect replay of
tuple locking operations", or some such?
> For this reason, users are encouraged to take a new base backup of each
> of their standby databases after applying the update.
"new base backup for", perhaps? With "of", this sounds like you're
telling people to make backups from the (corrupted) slave servers.
> * Remove ability to execute OVERLAPs with a single argument
There wasn't ever any actual ability to execute such calls; there was only
some code that tried to support the case and failed miserably. I'm not
sure this is worth mentioning in the announcement, really --- but if you
do, this is a poor description because it sounds like we removed a usable
feature.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | gabrielle | 2014-03-18 23:25:35 | OSCON booth |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-03-18 21:42:52 | Re: [HACKERS] First draft of update announcement |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-18 22:37:57 | Re: Minimum supported version of Python? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-03-18 21:42:52 | Re: [HACKERS] First draft of update announcement |