Re: PITR Dead horse?

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: <ntufar(at)pisem(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR Dead horse?
Date: 2004-02-05 09:01:46
Message-ID: 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B872071D@mail.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolai Tufar [mailto:ntufar(at)pisem(dot)net]
> Sent: 05 February 2004 08:15
> To: Dave Page
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PITR Dead horse?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Page [mailto:dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk] Well I've
> only been
> > using PostgreSQL since 1997 and the *only* release
> I
> > ever had problems with was 6.3.2. We also use(d) Informix SE, DB2,
> > Unidata and SQL Server and only Informix and Unidata come
> close to the
> > robustness of PostgreSQL - and they're not the ones we need
> to worry
> > about.
>
> Don't know. But apparently different users will have
> different demands From a database.

Of course, but I would argue that my claim that PostgreSQL is reliable
is backed up by the lack of people posting messages like 'we had a
powercut and now my DB is hosed'.

> > Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be continually looking to improve
> > things, but I don't think this is quite the problem you imply.
>
> For the customers I am dealing with it is quite a problem, believe me.

Do they have specific problems with the reliability of PostgreSQL then?
Perhaps you could post details of how things have gone wrong for them
(assuming you haven't already - I don't recall anything on -hackers
recently).

Regards, Dave

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD 2004-02-05 11:45:32 Re: [HACKERS] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
Previous Message Dave Page 2004-02-05 07:57:14 Re: PITR Dead horse?