From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gunnar Nick Bluth <gunnar(dot)bluth(at)pro-open(dot)de> |
Cc: | "pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Missing important information in backup.sgml |
Date: | 2016-11-23 20:50:59 |
Message-ID: | CACjxUsMYnRuYU1y7CXkqLV4Z5P16LNyzXE02TEELWTCXYujQwQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Gunnar "Nick" Bluth
<gunnar(dot)bluth(at)pro-open(dot)de> wrote:
> Am 23.11.2016 um 20:21 schrieb Kevin Grittner:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Gunnar "Nick" Bluth <gunnar(dot)bluth(at)pro-open(dot)de> wrote:
>>> to get actual _data loss_, you'd have to have a power outage in
>>> the DC caused by your PG server exploding...
>> If you value the data in your database you should assume that the
>> OS could go down at any instant without proper shutdown, and that
>> your storage system(s) could be lost without warning at any time.
> I've been in this business for 15 years, and had my share of outages.
> [enumeration of various failure modes and their respective impacts]
I have seen multiple posts on these lists where people say that
they don't need to worry about data written to the OS failing to
make it to storage because they a really good UPS. It sounds like
you understand that, as important as it is to have a UPS, it does
not preclude abrupt equipment failure; but I fear that the
statement you made might reinforce that notion in some quarters.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-24 07:00:04 | Documentation does not SSL parameters are postmaster-only |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-11-23 20:41:39 | Re: Missing important information in backup.sgml |