| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Medi Montaseri <medi(dot)montaseri(at)intransa(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits |
| Date: | 2002-11-21 00:09:34 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0211201703060.21721-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Medi Montaseri wrote:
> So I think you have shown that 7.2 achieves this by skiping current
> transactions....
> Thank you
You're welcome. Having re-read my response, I realize now it sounded
harsh, and I certainly didn't mean it that way.
Usually, when a bug shows up here involving race conditions they're so
rare that I've never run into them. And usually when Postgresql DOES make
a mistake, it's something like permanently making a tuple undeleteable or
non-vacuumable, i.e. it tends to err on the side of caution.
7.2 rocks by the way. It's rock solid for us, and we use it for dozens
and dozens of projects where I work. The Postgresql hackers have what I
call a "NASA space shot" mentality. Quite refreshing in a world of
"weekend drag racer" developers.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Graham Bartlett | 2002-11-21 00:49:28 | Where do I finf directions and code to set up replication with postgres |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 00:00:59 | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Clift | 2002-11-21 02:40:41 | Re: [GENERAL] Bug with sequence |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-21 00:00:59 | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits |