| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Patrick Desjardins <mrdesjardins(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Emanuel Calvo Franco <postgres(dot)arg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [GENERAL] ERROR: XX001: could not read block 2354 of relation... |
| Date: | 2009-04-03 02:19:04 |
| Message-ID: | 49D57218.70704@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Patrick Desjardins wrote:
> Humm, they want to close the AntiVirus for 1 night not anymore. Do you think
> that if we take out the database directory of the scan that it will solve
> the problem or it really need to have no antivirus on the server? They
> really want to keep it...
It depends on the AV product.
If you exclude all PostgreSQL processes from monitoring (the postmaster,
postgres.exe, etc) and you exclude the postgresql data directory from
scans and "realtime protection", then some AV programs may successfully
avoid interfering with Pg.
It depends on if the AV software is half-decently written. All you can
really do is test it and see. Hope you didn't need that data ...
Personally, I don't think there's any place for AV software on a
database server. It should not be necessary and it's a needless
performance/reliability hit.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-04-03 02:48:15 | Re: slow select in big table |
| Previous Message | Abbas | 2009-04-03 02:11:38 | Re: slow select in big table |