Re: [Slony1-general] Any big slony and WAL shipping users?

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] Any big slony and WAL shipping users?
Date: 2007-12-28 14:48:12
Message-ID: 20071228144812.GM13634@crankycanuck.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:21:53AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> This only helps against crasher bugs. For code injection, it's
> devastating if the attacker can compromise one node, and by
> diversifying, he or she can choose which code base to attack.

Well, it also helps in your robustness plan: if you find out about an
exploit before you've been exploited, you can turn off the exploitable
systems and still not lose service. But otherwise, yes, what you say is
true. Real 100% uptime is hard, no matter how you go at it.

A

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message marcelo Cortez 2007-12-28 15:33:02 double free corruption?
Previous Message Glyn Astill 2007-12-28 14:29:35 Re: Any big slony and WAL shipping users?