Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Shea <dan.shea@ec.gc.ca> writes:
>
>> You make it sound so easy. Our database size is at 308 GB.
>>
>
> Well, if you can't update major versions that's understandable; that's
> why we're still maintaining the old branches. But there is no excuse
> for not running a reasonably recent sub-release within your branch.
> Read the release notes, and consider what you will say if one of the
> several data-loss-causing bugs that were fixed long ago eats your DB:
>
Was it Feb 2002? The Slammer effectively shut down the entire Internet,
due to a severe bug in Microsucks SQL Server... A fix for that buffer
overflow bug had been available since August 2001; yet 90% of all SQL
servers on the planet were unpatched.
As much as it pains me to admit it, the lesson about the importance of
being a conscious, competent administrator takes precedence over the
lesson of how unbelievably incompetent and irresponsible and etc. etc.
Microsoft is to have such a braindead bug in such a high-profile and
high-price product.
Tom said it really nicely --- do stop and think about it; the day arrives
when you *lost* all those 308 GB of valuable data; and it was only in
your hands to have prevented it! Would you want to see the light of
*that* day?
Carlos
--
