Re: PITR Dead horse? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: PITR Dead horse?
Date
Msg-id 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B872071D@mail.vale-housing.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to PITR Dead horse?  (Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>)
Responses Re: PITR Dead horse?  ("Nicolai Tufar" <ntufar@pisem.net>)
Re: PITR Dead horse?  (Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>)
List pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolai Tufar [mailto:ntufar@pisem.net]
> Sent: 05 February 2004 08:15
> To: Dave Page
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PITR Dead horse?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Page [mailto:dpage@vale-housing.co.uk] Well I've
> only been
> > using PostgreSQL since 1997 and the *only* release
> I
> > ever had problems with was 6.3.2. We also use(d) Informix SE, DB2,
> > Unidata and SQL Server and only Informix and Unidata come
> close to the
> > robustness of PostgreSQL - and they're not the ones we need
> to worry
> > about.
>
> Don't know. But apparently different users will have
> different demands From a database.

Of course, but I would argue that my claim that PostgreSQL is reliable
is backed up by the lack of people posting messages like 'we had a
powercut and now my DB is hosed'.

> > Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be continually looking to improve
> > things, but I don't think this is quite the problem you imply.
>
> For the customers I am dealing with it is quite a problem, believe me.

Do they have specific problems with the reliability of PostgreSQL then?
Perhaps you could post details of how things have gone wrong for them
(assuming you haven't already - I don't recall anything on -hackers
recently).

Regards, Dave


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR Dead horse?
Next
From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint