| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Date: | 2016-02-02 00:56:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRUu9Px7q6ZGxrwDgrPRkjH3Pdi6ZyHGs1U2yjat5d3Tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-02-01 16:49:46 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Yeah. On 9.4 there are already some conflicts, and I'm sure there will
>> be more in almost each branch. Does anyone want to volunteer for
>> producing per-branch versions?
>
>> The next minor release is to be tagged next week and it'd be good to put
>> this fix there.
>
> I don't think this is going to be ready for that. The risk of hurrying
> this through seems higher than the loss risk at this point.
Agreed. And there is no actual risk of data loss, so let's not hurry
and be sure that the right think is pushed.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-02 00:58:11 | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-02-02 00:48:32 | Re: "using previous checkpoint record at" maybe not the greatest idea? |