Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around

In <4216A911(dot)9020704(at)dunslane(dot)net>, on 02/18/05
at 09:48 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> said:

>Russell Smith wrote:

>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:10 am, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In fact, I think it is so bad, that I think we need to back-port a fix to
>>>>previous versions and issue a notice of some kind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>They already do issue notices --- see VACUUM.
>>>
>>>A real fix (eg the forcible stop we were talking about earlier) will not
>>>be reasonable to back-port.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Not to be rude, but if backporting is not an option, why do we not just
>>focus on the job of getting autovacuum into 8.1, and not have to think
>>about how a patch that will warn users will work?
>>
>>
>>
>>

>What if autovacuum is turned off for some reason? Or fails? A more
>graceful failure along the lines suggested would be a good thing, ISTM.

>I agree with Tom about not backpatching, though. The situation seems
>analogous with a car owner who neglects the clear instructions in the
>manual to perform regular oil changes and then finds to his great
>surprise that the car stops running. It's hardly the manufacturer's
>fault.

>cheers

>andrew

I never did like car analogies...

At least a car comes with an IDIOT light or maybe even an oil pressure
gauge.

Something like that (the idiot light) is missing from postgreSQL. The oil
pressure gauge would be good to have, kind of like a gauge that lets you
when you are about to run out of fuel.

Of course the best thing is the auto-fill gas tank.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
lsunley(at)mb(dot)sympatico(dot)ca
-----------------------------------------------------------