Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around

> 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?

Unless I'm mistaken, even "autovacuum" may not be enough. AFAIK,
autovacuum depends on the statistics daemon, and some admins may turn that
off for performance. Even so, how unlikely is it that autovacuum doesn't
run.

I think there should be a 100% no data loss fail safe. Anything less is a
cop-out. I can't see one successful argument that starts with data loss
and ends with maintenence.