Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 03:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> The PostgreSQL team works REALLY hard to prevent any kind of
>> corruption scenario from rearing its ugly head, so when the word
>> corruption pops up I start to wonder about the system (hardware
>> wise) someone is using,
>
>
> You've apparently never used early versions of EnterpriseDB. ;)
>
> Kidding aside, it's apparently been a while since I read that particular
> part of the manual. The error I *was* familiar with was from the 8.0 manual:
>
> "WARNING:  some databases have not been vacuumed in 1613770184 transactions
> HINT:  Better vacuum them within 533713463 transactions, or you may have a
> wraparound failure."
>
> Ever since the early days, I've been so paranoid about regular vacuuming,
> I'm probably still a little overcautious.
>
> So, my bad. Having a database down for a few hours isn't exactly desirable,
> but it's certainly not corruption. :)

No biggie, more a question of semantics. Just a trigger word for me.
I started with pgsql 6.5.2 so I know ALL ABOUT corruption. hehe.