Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission criticalapplications? - Mailing list pgsql-general

The reason why opinions are so varied has alot to do with the expertise of
each person in relation to PostgreSQL and Linux.  Often problems that are
considered simple to resolve by some are very difficult for others.  And
sometimes problems are caused by actions that are done out of inexperince
with the system like cancelling certain operations in progress etc...
You probably would not be able to determine reliability from opinions.  The
thing is PostgreSQL is extremely reliable if u know what you are doing and
know how to handle/get around any bugs.

Lookig at some of the other posts about reliability...the number of records
in a database will mainly determine the ability of a database to maintain
performance at larger file/index sizes.  It does not really impact
stability.  Stability is mainly affected by the number of
reads/updates/inserts that are performed.  Usually u want to look at large
user loads, large transaction loads and large number of
updates/inserts/deletes to gauge reliability.   I havent seen anyone post
saying that they are running a system that does this...perhaps I just missed
the post.

can I ask what type of application u aer going to use PostgreSQL for?


----- Original Message -----
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Stephen Birch <sbirch@ironmountainsystems.com>
Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>; <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission
criticalapplications?


>
> Everyone has their own experiences, and difficulties...there are X
> platforms out there that PostgreSQL supports, multiply that by however
> many different hardware pieces that be thrown the standard box, and you'll
> get that many different experiences...would i use it in a mission critical
> box?  yes, I do on several.  have I ever had problems...to be honest,
> yes...most of them at the application level.
>
>  On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Stephen Birch wrote:
>
> > I have been surprised by the response to this question.  I was hoping
that the
> > responses would be more consistent, after all when software is
unreliable it
> > is generally known by all users.
> >
> > Although one would expect a subjective bias to the opinions, the answers
> > provided in the thread are highly polarized.   Jochen Topf gave a
frightening
> > description of an unreliable database which gave unpredictable results.
For
> > example:
> >
> > > The most frustrating thing is that most bugs are not repeatable or at
least
> > > not repeatable in a small test script that I could send in with a bug
report.
> > > Looking at the bug reports that come through the mailing list, there
are a
> > > lots of the type: X works here but not in this similar situation. This
is
> > > IMHO a symptom of a bad design. A recent upgrade (I think it was from
6.5
> > > to 6.5.1 or something like that) helped a little bit but on the other
hand
> > > some query optimizations that worked before didn't work anymore.
> > >
> >
> > This is pretty scary.
> >
> > However, I then read another reply only to find that Brett McCoy is
converting
> > "hundreds of thousands of documents" with no PostgresSQL problems at
all.
> > Brett indicates that:
> >
> > > So I think PostgreSQL is quite solid and reliable.  The only thing I
think
> > > that is sorely needed in PostgreSQL is referential integrity
constraints
> > > like foreign keys (although this can be emulated with triggers).
> > >
> >
> > In fact, the lack of referential integrity constraints happens to be my
> > biggest concern - assuming the database is reliable, something that is
proving
> > hard to determine.
> >
> > Reading on, I see that "The Hermit Hacker" (love the name) also finds
the
> > database to be reliable:
> >
> > > Odd, I've been using PostgreSQL since v1.x for exactly this same
reason,
> > > and we haven't had any problems with the database crashing since v6.x
was
> > > released.  Then again, the radius server opens/closes its connections
as
> > > required, instead of relynig on one persistent connection, so maybe
that
> > > helps, but that's just "application programming" vs backend...
> > >
> >
> > There is a subtle implication that perhaps Jochen's problems are self
> > inflicted.  In a later email, Jochen responds and asks if he is the only
one
> > using "advanced features" and suggests that they may be the cause of his
> > problems.  However, his list of "advanced features" is a little scary
since
> > that are the very features that makes PostgreSQL so attractive in  the
first
> > place - and I fully intend to use them!
> >
> > So which is is guys, is this database dependable for commercial use - or
is an
> > academic oddity, worth watching but not using?
> >
> > Any other success or failure stories would be really helpful....
> >
> > Is PostgresSQL ready for prime time, or is it limpware?
> >
> > Steve