Funny enough, the admin of the group, who was the thread starter, closed the thread after his final response.
I know. I guess my final comment made him see some light (and realize that it's not working)-
"
..... Secondly, you have missed the point completely (despite it being pointed out by so many on this post) - The failure was not because of the database but the underlying infra and redundancy of provided by infra. Having said that, I can see the purpose of this post is more to have a negative marketing and less to have an open debate....
"
He just wanted to make a final comment (and a conclusive one). Clearly depicts how open he or the group is towards comments/suggestions!
That is one thing I respect about community. Uber wrote a blog on why they moved on from Postgres and we had community leader jumping in at the opportunity to make Postgres better. In other user groups people can not even take straight facts!
El 10/02/17 a las 05:01, Gunnar "Nick" Bluth escribió: > >> Question is, is there anything Postgres can really learn from this failure? > > Maybe re-order the docs? From what they made public, it seemed they > either started backing up with a 7.x or early 8.x release and never > adjusted the procedure to the new possibilities (LVM snapshots?!? > Really?!?) or they stopped reading too early... :/
Simon Riggs wrote a nice blog after the incident, which IMO details the flaws in the incident, with the conclusion that postgres wasn't in fault there.
I don't think the issue they had has anything to do with how the documentation is organized. This was just bad system administration policies (you can see a bunch of changes they did after the incident which aim at preventing from happening again).
In particular, the same problem would have happened with any database engine, including Oracle. (I'm taking about the administrator deleting all the data files)