Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around

From: Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around
Date: 2005-02-19 02:02:57
Message-ID: 200502191302.58099.mr-russ@pws.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

Regards

Russell Smith

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message lsunley 2005-02-19 02:10:02 Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2005-02-18 23:49:41 Re: SPI_finish and RegisterExprContextCallback