The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2000, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
>
> > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 May 2000, planx plnetx wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've remarked that postgresql-7.0 have two important bugs no, no...
> > > > I'll define its Problems.
> > > >
> > > > The first is that it is very subsceptible to ipc: it's true that sometimes
> > > > U need to do an ipcclean to remake it start
> > >
> > > This sounds like a Linux problem to me ... I've got v7.0 running on a
> > > server over here that is dealign with the Search engine for the PostgreSQL
> > > site (over 10million tuples in one table, indexing over 90k URLs) and the
> > > server has been running flawlessly for the past ~14days now, and what is
> > > only because that was the last time we rebooted it ...
> >
> > We've been running 7.0 on a linux server since RC3 on a database with
> > over 40 million tuples without this problem (all 40 million tuples are
> > indexed on 3 fields). So I'm not sure I see how it can be concluded
> > that this is a linux problem.
>
> Could his Linux server be mis-configured?
Could be. But he said he installed separately on several installs -
redhat 6.1, 6.2, and mandrake I believe.
I don't think he indicated whether he used the RPMS or compiled himself.
Assuming this is some sort of configuration issue, which seems sort of
likely, it's at least as likely that it's related to a misunderstanding
about how to cofigure postgreSQL.
Since I can't reproduce the error, and since I'm only beginning to get
familiar with little bits of the DBMS internals, I can't really help.
But I did want to put my counter-example out there so that Linux users
wouldn't get the sense that your fine product is somehow unreliable on
Linux. IIRC, Linux is a large part of your installed base - no real
point in scaring them off. Even if there are other legitimate arguments
for other OS's.
Karl DeBisschop
