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

From scott.marlowe
Subject Re: PITR Dead horse?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.33.0402091002440.23974-100000@css120.ihs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PITR Dead horse?  (Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>)
Responses Re: PITR Dead horse?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
Re: PITR Dead horse?  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:

> > > 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'.
> 
> One thing we could use (and I have no idea how to do it) is a "This
> hardware is not appropriate for a database" test kit.
> 
> Something to detect lying disks, battery backed write cache that isn't
> so battery backed, etc.

but I'm not sure you can test that without power off tests...  so, it 
would have to be a test that kinda started up then told you to pull the 
plug on the box.  Even a kernel panic wouldn't detect it because the drive 
would still be powered up.

Or, you could have a test that checked what kind of drive it was (IDE 
versus SCSI) and maybe had a table of drives that are known to lie, 
possibly even by version, should drives of the same model stop lying half 
way through production due to fixes in their firmware.

I'd guess it the table would still have to be built the old fashioned way, 
by doing power off tests.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Brusser
Date:
Subject: Question on pg_dump
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: psql variables