Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Shea <dan(dot)shea(at)ec(dot)gc(dot)ca> writes:
>> You make it sound so easy. Our database size is at 308 GB.
> Well, if you can't update major versions that's understandable; that's
> why we're still maintaining the old branches. But there is no excuse
> for not running a reasonably recent sub-release within your branch.
> Read the release notes, and consider what you will say if one of the
> several data-loss-causing bugs that were fixed long ago eats your DB:
Was it Feb 2002? The Slammer effectively shut down the entire Internet,
due to a severe bug in Microsucks SQL Server... A fix for that buffer
overflow bug had been available since August 2001; yet 90% of all SQL
servers on the planet were unpatched.
As much as it pains me to admit it, the lesson about the importance of
being a conscious, competent administrator takes precedence over the
lesson of how unbelievably incompetent and irresponsible and etc. etc.
Microsoft is to have such a braindead bug in such a high-profile and
Tom said it really nicely --- do stop and think about it; the day arrives
when you *lost* all those 308 GB of valuable data; and it was only in
your hands to have prevented it! Would you want to see the light of
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: zardozrocks||Date: 2007-04-24 21:26:46|
|Subject: Simple query, 10 million records...MySQL ten times faster|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-24 18:09:36|
|Subject: Re: View is not using a table index |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: finecur||Date: 2007-04-24 21:19:05|
|Subject: query from a list of ids|
|Previous:||From: Manuel Sugawara||Date: 2007-04-24 20:57:52|
|Subject: Re: Audit-trail engine: getting the application's layer user_id|