Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-general by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group