Scott Carey wrote:
> Moral of the story: Nothing is 100% safe, so sometimes a small bit of KNOWN
> risk is perfectly fine. There is always UNKNOWN risk. If one risks losing
> 256K of cached data on an SSD if you're really unlucky with timing, how
> dangerous is that versus the chance that the raid card or other hardware
> barfs and takes out your whole WAL?
>
I think the point of the paranoia in this thread is that if you're
introducing a component with a known risk in it, you're really asking
for trouble because (as you point out) it's hard enough to keep a system
running just through the unexpected ones that shouldn't have happened at
all. No need to make that even harder by introducing something that is
*known* to fail under some conditions.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com
