Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around

Russell Smith wrote:

>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?
>
>
>
>

What if autovacuum is turned off for some reason? Or fails? A more
graceful failure along the lines suggested would be a good thing, ISTM.

I agree with Tom about not backpatching, though. The situation seems
analogous with a car owner who neglects the clear instructions in the
manual to perform regular oil changes and then finds to his great
surprise that the car stops running. It's hardly the manufacturer's fault.

cheers

andrew