Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission criticalapplications?

From: Ed Loehr <ELOEHR(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>
To: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
Cc: Barnes <aardvark(at)ibm(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission criticalapplications?
Date: 1999-12-29 20:28:22
Message-ID: 386A6EE6.87DD3C82@austin.rr.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Thanks, Mike! This is the most lucid, concise explanation of so many
postgresql "gotchas" I've seen yet.

Mike Mascari wrote:

> 2. Using views created with large queries - Views use the
> rewrite system and rules to rewrite a query against it to
> properly fetch data from the underlying tables. Because
> there is currently a limit on the size of a single database
> record (8192 bytes), the queries associated with views can
> only be so big. ...

One additional anomaly as of 6.5.2 regarding backup and recovery...

If one simply compares the before/after output of load/dump scripts, it can at
first appear that pg_dump will occasionally convert a view built on non-empty
tables into a table itself with zero records. This happens during the
following backup test sequence for me:

% pg_dump -d mydb > db.out
% destroydb mydb
% createdb mydb
% psql -d mydb < db.out
% pg_dump -d mydb > db2.out
% diff db.out db2.out

This is because a view _is_ actually implemented as a table combined with a
redirecting rule, and thus not a problem. See the following for details.

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=559228857

Cheers,
Ed Loehr

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Landis 1999-12-29 22:02:11
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-12-29 19:45:13 Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission criticalapplications?