Do we need to do a bunch of testing on Beta3 before deployment or is it
so much more stable that it absolutely will have no problems?
We haven't had any problems with the ~Nov 17 snapshot, so we figure why mess
with a good thing.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:23:30PM -0500, Jeff Duffy wrote:
> Just wanted to make sure you saw this.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:51:44 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: SourceForge & Postgres
> Tim Perdue wrote:
> > I thought the hackers team would be interested in knowing that SourceForge, as
> > of Friday evening, is running on Postgres. Some 95,000 users and 12,500 Open
> > Source projects are depending on your stuff, so I hope it's going to be stable
> > for us. ;-)
> the PG core team is wondering if SourceForge might still be
> running on a snapshot prior to BETA3, because there is a
> major bug in it that could result in a complete corruption of
> the system catalog.
> The bug is that the shared buffer cache might mix up blocks
> between different databases. As long as you only use one
> database, you're fairly safe. But a single 'createdb' or
> 'createuser' on the same instance, which is connecting to
> template1, could blow away your entire installation. It is
> fixed in BETA3.
> My personal recommendation should be clear.
Founder - PHPBuilder.com / Geocrawler.com
Lead Developer - SourceForge
VA Linux Systems
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Philip Warner||Date: 2001-01-26 03:09:05|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump issues|
|Previous:||From: Lamar Owen||Date: 2001-01-26 02:33:21|
|Subject: Re: RPM: Contrib request.|