Thread: PostgreSQL vs Firebird SQL

On 02/10/2016 05:10 AM, ioan ghip wrote:
> I have a Firebird SQL database running on one of my servers which has
> about 50k inserts, about 100k updates and about 30k deletes every day.
> There are about 4 million records in 24 tables. I have a bunch of stored
> procedures, triggers, events and views that I'm using.
> Firebird works fairly well, but from time to time the database gets
> corrupted and I couldn't figure out yet (after many years of running)
> what's the reason. When this happens I run "gfix -mend -full -ignore",
> backup and restore the db and everything is fine until next problem in a
> week, or a month.
>
> I never used PostgreSQL. Yesterday I installed it on my development
> machine and after few tests I saw that it's fairly easy to use.
>
> Does anyone have experience with both, Firebird and PostgreSQL? Is
> PostgreSQL way better performing than Firebird? Is it worth the effort
> moving away from Firebird? Would I gain stability and increased performance?

Well, performance in PostgreSQL is largely dependant on your hardware.
The numbers you're talking about seem pretty small to me, though; I can
do 1000 inserts per *second* on a medium-sized AWS instance.  So I don't
think performance will be your main concern.

I'm sorry to hear about your data corruption issues on Firebird.  That's
dissapointing, especially since Firebird was one of the champion early
open source databases.  Proof against database corruption is a major
part of PostgreSQL.  I suggest turning on data checksums when you create
your database (this is not the default option) just in case the
corruption issue is actually your hardware.

PostgreSQL is a *server* database, though, so managing it is going to be
fairly different from Firebird, which is primarily a desktop database.
I suggest looking into pgAdmin4 to help with that.

--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)

I have a Firebird SQL database running on one of my servers which has about 50k inserts, about 100k updates and about 30k deletes every day. There are about 4 million records in 24 tables. I have a bunch of stored procedures, triggers, events and views that I'm using. 
Firebird works fairly well, but from time to time the database gets corrupted and I couldn't figure out yet (after many years of running) what's the reason. When this happens I run "gfix -mend -full -ignore", backup and restore the db and everything is fine until next problem in a week, or a month.

I never used PostgreSQL. Yesterday I installed it on my development machine and after few tests I saw that it's fairly easy to use.

Does anyone have experience with both, Firebird and PostgreSQL? Is PostgreSQL way better performing than Firebird? Is it worth the effort moving away from Firebird? Would I gain stability and increased performance?

Thanks.

-- 
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:34:53AM +0200, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:

PG on tankers:

> About checksums in our office master DB that's a fine idea, too bad that pg_upgrade doesn't cope with them

I am sure you have considered "failing over" the master to an
in-office slave which has got checksums turned on ?

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

On 10/02/2016 12:40, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:34:53AM +0200, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
>
> PG on tankers:
>
>> About checksums in our office master DB that's a fine idea, too bad that pg_upgrade doesn't cope with them
> I am sure you have considered "failing over" the master to an
> in-office slave which has got checksums turned on ?

Is that possible with standard streaming replication? As far as I am concerned the (master/hot standby) images have to
beidentical (no initdb involved). I guess you mean some sort of external  
(logical?) replication mechanism? We are trying to avoid initdb and restore for the obvious reasons.
But anyway, we have streaming replication to a hot standby (non checksum server) + WAL archiving for some years now.
For10+ years we survived (surprisingly!!) without those, we are better than ever  
now. BTW, the checksum feature would definitely make sense to run on our vessels where the vibrations and harsh
conditionstend to affect hardware badly. Unfortunately migrating from 8.3 is a huge  
project, which we won't be forever postponing and should deal with some day.

>
> Karsten


--
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt

On 2/9/2016 10:10 PM, ioan ghip wrote:
> I have a Firebird SQL database running on one of my servers which has
> about 50k inserts, about 100k updates and about 30k deletes every day.
> There are about 4 million records in 24 tables. I have a bunch of stored
> procedures, triggers, events and views that I'm using.
> Firebird works fairly well, but from time to time the database gets
> corrupted and I couldn't figure out yet (after many years of running)
> what's the reason. When this happens I run "gfix -mend -full -ignore",
> backup and restore the db and everything is fine until next problem in a
> week, or a month.
>
> I never used PostgreSQL. Yesterday I installed it on my development
> machine and after few tests I saw that it's fairly easy to use.
>
> Does anyone have experience with both, Firebird and PostgreSQL? Is
> PostgreSQL way better performing than Firebird? Is it worth the effort
> moving away from Firebird? Would I gain stability and increased performance?
>
> Thanks.
>


One of our windows apps runs on a client/server setup in the office, and
then on laptop for remote use.  We use Firebird (FB) for both.  Its a
quick simple install, runs in 8 meg of ram, has zero maintenance.

The only time I've seen corruptions is anti-virus scanning the db, and
HD/raid problems.

FB is a nice little db.  That said, I can wholeheartedly recommend PG!
It could still run on a laptop, might require a bit more maintenance,
but on a dedicated server, it would be able to grow and use all the
resources available.

If you have HD/raid problems, then you wont gain stability.  Upgrading
between major versions is also more difficult.

That said, yes, you'd gain stability and performance, and not only that,
a huge amount of functionality.  A Huge Amount!

FB has, replace() for string ops, oh and substring().  Baa.  That's
nothing compared to PG's.  Its like that Aladdin song 'a whole new world'!

You know, in FB, when one person does a large delete on a table?  The
next person that runs a select will perform the vacuum on it.  Its the
person running the select that pays the time for a huge delete.  In PG,
there is a background vacuum task, so users don't pay the price.

Respect for FB, but my heart belongs to PG.

-Andy

Em 10/02/2016 13:32, Andy Colson escreveu:
> On 2/9/2016 10:10 PM, ioan ghip wrote:
>> I have a Firebird SQL database running on one of my servers which has
>> about 50k inserts, about 100k updates and about 30k deletes every day.
>> There are about 4 million records in 24 tables. I have a bunch of stored
>> procedures, triggers, events and views that I'm using.
>> Firebird works fairly well, but from time to time the database gets
>> corrupted and I couldn't figure out yet (after many years of running)
>> what's the reason. When this happens I run "gfix -mend -full -ignore",
>> backup and restore the db and everything is fine until next problem in a
>> week, or a month.
>>
>> I never used PostgreSQL. Yesterday I installed it on my development
>> machine and after few tests I saw that it's fairly easy to use.
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with both, Firebird and PostgreSQL? Is
>> PostgreSQL way better performing than Firebird? Is it worth the effort
>> moving away from Firebird? Would I gain stability and increased
>> performance?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>
> One of our windows apps runs on a client/server setup in the office,
> and then on laptop for remote use.  We use Firebird (FB) for both.
> Its a quick simple install, runs in 8 meg of ram, has zero maintenance.
>
> The only time I've seen corruptions is anti-virus scanning the db, and
> HD/raid problems.
>
> FB is a nice little db.  That said, I can wholeheartedly recommend PG!
> It could still run on a laptop, might require a bit more maintenance,
> but on a dedicated server, it would be able to grow and use all the
> resources available.
>
> If you have HD/raid problems, then you wont gain stability. Upgrading
> between major versions is also more difficult.
>
> That said, yes, you'd gain stability and performance, and not only
> that, a huge amount of functionality.  A Huge Amount!
>
> FB has, replace() for string ops, oh and substring().  Baa. That's
> nothing compared to PG's.  Its like that Aladdin song 'a whole new
> world'!
>
> You know, in FB, when one person does a large delete on a table? The
> next person that runs a select will perform the vacuum on it. Its the
> person running the select that pays the time for a huge delete.  In
> PG, there is a background vacuum task, so users don't pay the price.
>
> Respect for FB, but my heart belongs to PG.
>
> -Andy
>
>
+1

Also, running a office server, being it small or huge, you can have a
replicated server - so it is virtually impossible to loose data.

Synchronous and asynchronous replication is really easy to implement in
PG, and makes it a strong (in terms of lossless) database server - even
when compared with Oracle, MS SQL or IBM Db2. You can have two database
servers, being one updatable and two for queries - that make reporting
faster, for example!

By using BARMAN you can have online incremental backups to a third
server, which a unvaluable for online transaction and operation. You may
never ever loose data again - except if you database server crashes
(hardware failure), and your replicated server crashes at same time
(hardware failure also), and then you may loose up to last 15Mb of
changes (the amount of data transfered to backup server on each
incremental step).

So if your concern if for safety: keep your servers geografically
separated, or, at minimum, in different eletrical and network
installations, preferable in different buildings, using good hardware
(with twins disks, power lines, network interfaces - all doubled).
Personally, I do like Dell R420 servers for database servers - they are
really reliable in my setup.

Finally, you can have embed database running togheter with your app -
and even the for said additional maintenance, you can schedule it or
even throw from inside your app.

You will see it is possible to have a 99.999% database uptime with no
hasless, running for years without aditional DBA interference.

Also, the tooling to help planning indices and test query performance is
really good, and the PgAdmin III has been good and quite strong (has
some flaws, but nothing that really interfere in its usage).


Regards,

Edson Richter

Hello,

Le 10/02/2016 08:43, Chris Travers a écrit :
> I have never seen database corruption on PostgreSQL that was not a
> result of either:
> 1. Use cases WAY out of the ordinary (and then only years ago and I
> reported a bug on this and it was very quickly fixed)
> 2. Hardware problems
> 3. Heat management problems (sticking a db server in a hot closet, and
> then only indexes were corrupted).
>
> I do think on decent hardware you will have no trouble. In other words,
> outside of horrible abuse, PostgreSQL does very well.

Yes, I've seen more than horrible abuses... and I can firmly confirm
that PostgreSQL behaves very reliably, in my humble experience with
PostgreSQL.
Let me tell you about one of the worst use cases I've encountered. I had
set up a server (it was actually my desktop machine that I abandoned on
site, with the name "server" quickly written on it, running with a
Debian Stable GNU/Linux and a PostgreSQL cluster) on one of my clients'
site, in West Africa. A few months after, a colleague called me on the
phone, he was complaining about the server not restarting. He forgot to
mention a few details:
- the power was going down about once to twice per hour during five to ten
minutes each time;
- the UPS battery was dead, it provided about half a second of power during
failures;
- the floor was carefully bloomed daily, but without sprinkling water
on the floor, so that all the laterite dust was floating in the air.

During this phone call, a power failure happened. He told me "I must
restart the server, please hold on", and then I heard a strange noise,
like someone repeatedly banging with a hammer. When he resumed our
telephonic conversation, a few seconds later, I asked him about that
noise; he said "oh, yes, I need to hammer on the power button of the
server; otherwise it won't start"...

Some time later, I did a mission on site. The situation of the poor
little server was absolutely horrible: it was covered with red laterite
dust, the inside of the machine was all red and dusty, the grids in
front of the fans had totally rusted within a few months; people were
literally hammering on it, for the power button was stuck with fine
dust; temperature was around 30°C to 45°C, depending on the season, no
or so few air conditioning, and moisture often close to 100% (you know,
when you see condensation happening indoor, indoor rain is an
interesting phenomena).
I carefully dismantled the machine, cleaned it thoroughly, we moved it
in a slightly cooler area (the boss's office), trying to find a power
outlet which would be stable enough...

So, the context of was, I think, way outside of what I would call a
horrible abuse; but despite these conditions, PostgreSQL did very well,
there has never been any data loss, it was used daily for
mission-critical operations.


> So there are my $0.02

And these were my small 0.02€ ;)

À+
Pierre

PS: sorry Chris, I didn't pay attention while replying: I replied to you
only, instead of the list => corrected, sorry for the double entry in
your mailbox.

PPS: how should I behave on this list: should I systematically "reply to
all", or just "reply" to the list?  I'm used to a number of mailing
lists where a simple "reply" automatically replies to the list, and the
rule obliges you to *only* use "reply".



> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:10 AM, ioan ghip <ioan@pangea-comm.com
> <mailto:ioan@pangea-comm.com>> wrote:
>
>     I have a Firebird SQL database running on one of my servers which
>     has about 50k inserts, about 100k updates and about 30k deletes
>     every day. There are about 4 million records in 24 tables. I have a
>     bunch of stored procedures, triggers, events and views that I'm using.
>     Firebird works fairly well, but from time to time the database gets
>     corrupted and I couldn't figure out yet (after many years of
>     running) what's the reason. When this happens I run "gfix -mend
>     -full -ignore", backup and restore the db and everything is fine
>     until next problem in a week, or a month.
>
>
> Is this running as an embedded engine or a standalone server?  One thing
> about Firebird is that since it is embeddable, in that mode other
> application bugs could corrupt the database.  In the other case, I would
> expect you may want to run hardware diagnostics to rule out hardware
> problems going forward.  If you find hardware problems fix them first,
> then look further.
>
> But the low hanging possible things to look at here are moving from an
> embedded mode to a standalone server if applicable, and checking out
> your hardware.  If these turn out not to be the problem, then I would
> recommend moving.
>
>     I never used PostgreSQL. Yesterday I installed it on my development
>     machine and after few tests I saw that it's fairly easy to use.
>
>     Does anyone have experience with both, Firebird and PostgreSQL? Is
>     PostgreSQL way better performing than Firebird? Is it worth the
>     effort moving away from Firebird? Would I gain stability and
>     increased performance?
>
>
> I have never seen database corruption on PostgreSQL that was not a
> result of either:
>
> 1.  Use cases WAY out of the ordinary (and then only years ago and I
> reported a bug on this and it was very quickly fixed)
> 2.  Hardware problems
> 3.  Heat management problems (sticking a db server in a hot closet, and
> then only indexes were corrupted).
>
> I do think on decent hardware you will have no trouble.  In other words,
> outside of horrible abuse, PostgreSQL does very well.
>
> The largest PostgreSQL database I have worked with had hundreds of
> tables, some containing over a hundred million rows, and took up 9TB+ of
> storage.  And it processed millions of inserts, deletes, and updates
> every day (24x7 scientific computing cluster processing the data in the
> db).   Granted at that scale performance requires very good hardware and
> an attention to detail but with those it runs fine.
>
> I do have experience on both and am generally happier with PostgreSQL
> but I can imagine there are cases where the move may be painful.  Stored
> procedures are one (though probably not so bad).  The bigger issue I
> think you will run into is case folding.  Firebird follows the SQL
> standard and folds to upper case.  The PostgreSQL community really
> doesn't like this and folds to lower case.  This can require some
> changes in application code to make work properly.
>
> So there are my $0.02
>
>
>     Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> Efficito:  Hosted Accounting and ERP.  Robust and Flexible.  No vendor
> lock-in.
> http://www.efficito.com/learn_more

--
____________________________________________________________________________
Pierre Chevalier
PChGEI: Pierre Chevalier Géologue Et Informaticien
     Mesté Duran
     32100 Condom
   Tél+fax  :    09 75 27 45 62
                 06 37 80 33 64
   Émail  :   pierrechevaliergeolCHEZfree.fr
   icq#   :   10432285
   jabber: pierre.chevalier1967@jabber.fr
   http://pierremariechevalier.free.fr/pierre_chevalier_geologue
____________________________________________________________________________

PPS: how should I behave on this list: should I systematically "reply to all", or just "reply" to the list?  I'm used to a number of mailing lists where a simple "reply" automatically replies to the list, and the rule obliges you to *only* use "reply".

-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On 02/10/2016 09:24 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:08 AM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com
> <mailto:pierce@hogranch.com>>wrote:
>
>     On 2/10/2016 8:51 AM, Pierre Chevalier Géologue wrote:
>>     PPS: how should I behave on this list: should I systematically
>>     "reply to all", or just "reply" to the list?  I'm used to a number
>>     of mailing lists where a simple "reply" automatically replies to
>>     the list, and the rule obliges you to **only** use "reply".
>
>
>     Thunderbird offers me both 'reply' and 'reply list' buttons for the
>     messages on this list.
>
>     most of the lists I'm on, a simple reply IS a reply list, as they
>     wish to encourage discussions rather than private responses.   I
>     personally dislike 'reply all' as I'm ON the list so why send me
>     another CC ?

Go here:

https://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr/domain=postgresql.org?func=lists-long-full&extra=pgsql-general

And in settings check:

eliminatecc
     Select this if you do not want two copies when someone sends a
message both to you and to the list.


>
>
> It lets me distinguish between the list threads that I haven't responded
> to and those that I have.​
>
>  From observation pretty much everyone here uses reply-to-all...I
> suspect for a similar reason.

Also if the mail server is down or overloaded(a less frequent occurrence
these days) you can carry on a conversation while the server catches up.

>
> David J.
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:14:42PM +0200, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:

> >>About checksums in our office master DB that's a fine idea, too bad that pg_upgrade doesn't cope with them
> >I am sure you have considered "failing over" the master to an
> >in-office slave which has got checksums turned on ?
>
> Is that possible with standard streaming replication? As far as I am
> concerned the (master/hot standby) images have to be identical (no initdb
> involved). I guess you mean some sort of external (logical?) replication
> mechanism? We are trying to avoid initdb and restore for the obvious
> reasons.

I had been thinking of a one-time, purpose-driven use of Slony.

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

Le 10/02/2016 18:08, John R Pierce a écrit :
> On 2/10/2016 8:51 AM, Pierre Chevalier Géologue wrote:
>> PPS: how should I behave on this list: should I systematically "reply
>> to all", or just "reply" to the list?  I'm used to a number of mailing
>> lists where a simple "reply" automatically replies to the list, and
>> the rule obliges you to *only* use "reply".
>
> Thunderbird offers me both 'reply' and 'reply list' buttons for the
> messages on this list.

Same for me, except that I dislike buttons so they are hidden: Ctrl-R
and Shift-Ctrl-R do the same trick...


> most of the lists I'm on, a simple reply IS a reply list,

Yes, same for me, I only know less than 3 exceptions, among a few dozen
lists.


> as they wish to encourage discussions rather than
>private responses.

+1.



> I personally dislike 'reply all'

Yes, I totally agree with you, I prefer much 'reply'ing to the list, I'm
doing that 90% of my time spent on lists.

Would there be a chance to change the default behaviour of the postgres
lists?  This is to be setup on the list's server side. But it requires
some "political" decision first, and of course a consensus.


> as I'm ON the list so why send me another CC ?

No point, as your reply arrives on the list, you can see it in the thread.


À+
Pierre
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Pierre Chevalier
PChGEI: Pierre Chevalier Géologue Et Informaticien
     Mesté Duran
     32100 Condom
   Tél+fax  :    09 75 27 45 62
                 06 37 80 33 64
   Émail  :   pierrechevaliergeolCHEZfree.fr
   icq#   :   10432285
   jabber: pierre.chevalier1967@jabber.fr
   http://pierremariechevalier.free.fr/pierre_chevalier_geologue
____________________________________________________________________________

Le 10/02/2016 19:49, Adrian Klaver a écrit :
> Go here:
> https://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr/domain=postgresql.org?func=lists-long-full&extra=pgsql-general

> And in settings check:
> eliminatecc
>      Select this if you do not want two copies when someone sends a
> message both to you and to the list.


Thanks for the trick, I just followed your advice (before I started
writing this mail, though...).

I am trying to figure out from the help documentation

(https://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr/domain=postgresql.org?user=pierrechevaliergeol%40free.fr&passw=0F21-276B-3588&list=GLOBAL&func=help&extra=set)

how to set the default "reply-to" to the list.

The 'replyto' option seems to be what I wish:
> Add a Reply-to header
> These control Reply-To: header generation. If the list owner has defined
> a Reply-To: header, you can specify whether or not you want to see it.
> replyto - always add the Reply-To: header
> noreplyto - never add the header (but if the poster has provided one,
> you will see it)
> Usually, turning this setting on will cause your replies to be addressed
> to the mailing list; turning this setting off will cause your replies to
> be addressed to the person who wrote the message to which you are
> replying.

=> do you confirm?


>> It lets me distinguish between the list threads that I haven't responded
>> to and those that I have.​

?  In the other lists where I am, even though I always 'reply' and it
goes automatically to the list, I can see my own replies, displayed
within the appropriate conversation thread.
Or did I miss a point?

À+
Pierre
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Pierre Chevalier
PChGEI: Pierre Chevalier Géologue Et Informaticien
     Mesté Duran
     32100 Condom
   Tél+fax  :    09 75 27 45 62
                 06 37 80 33 64
   Émail  :   pierrechevaliergeolCHEZfree.fr
   icq#   :   10432285
   jabber: pierre.chevalier1967@jabber.fr
   http://pierremariechevalier.free.fr/pierre_chevalier_geologue
____________________________________________________________________________

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:10 PM, ioan ghip <ioan@pangea-comm.com> wrote:
> I have a Firebird SQL database running on one of my servers which has about
> 50k inserts, about 100k updates and about 30k deletes every day. There are
> about 4 million records in 24 tables. I have a bunch of stored procedures,
> triggers, events and views that I'm using.
> Firebird works fairly well, but from time to time the database gets
> corrupted and I couldn't figure out yet (after many years of running) what's
> the reason. When this happens I run "gfix -mend -full -ignore", backup and
> restore the db and everything is fine until next problem in a week, or a
> month.
>
> I never used PostgreSQL. Yesterday I installed it on my development machine
> and after few tests I saw that it's fairly easy to use.

> Does anyone have experience with both, Firebird and PostgreSQL?
yes

> Is PostgreSQL way better performing than Firebird?
yes

> Is it worth the effort moving away from Firebird?
yes

> Would I gain stability and increased performance?
yes

Firebird was and is a pretty neat database. I still remember when I
first fired up Delphi and whipped out an application in about 10
minutes.  Well, it's time to move on...you're with us now.

merlin

On 02/11/2016 05:42 AM, Pierre Chevalier Géologue wrote:
> Le 10/02/2016 19:49, Adrian Klaver a écrit :
>> Go here:
>> https://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr/domain=postgresql.org?func=lists-long-full&extra=pgsql-general
>>
>
>> And in settings check:
>> eliminatecc
>>      Select this if you do not want two copies when someone sends a
>> message both to you and to the list.
>
>
> Thanks for the trick, I just followed your advice (before I started
> writing this mail, though...).
>
> I am trying to figure out from the help documentation
>
(https://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr/domain=postgresql.org?user=pierrechevaliergeol%40free.fr&passw=0F21-276B-3588&list=GLOBAL&func=help&extra=set)
> how to set the default "reply-to" to the list.
>
> The 'replyto' option seems to be what I wish:
>> Add a Reply-to header
>> These control Reply-To: header generation. If the list owner has defined
>> a Reply-To: header, you can specify whether or not you want to see it.
>> replyto - always add the Reply-To: header
>> noreplyto - never add the header (but if the poster has provided one,
>> you will see it)
>> Usually, turning this setting on will cause your replies to be addressed
>> to the mailing list; turning this setting off will cause your replies to
>> be addressed to the person who wrote the message to which you are
>> replying.
>
> => do you confirm?

I have not used this, so I cannot confirm, though it seems to do what
you want. The only setting I have ever actually changed was to unset
selfcopy. I use Thunderbird and it seems to know what to do with Reply
All on both ends, sending/receiving.

>
>
>>> It lets me distinguish between the list threads that I haven't responded
>>> to and those that I have.​
>
> ?  In the other lists where I am, even though I always 'reply' and it
> goes automatically to the list, I can see my own replies, displayed
> within the appropriate conversation thread.
> Or did I miss a point?
>
> À+
> Pierre


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:34:53AM +0200, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
> PostgreSQL *is* a reliable DB.
>
> About checksums in our office master DB that's a fine idea, too bad that
> pg_upgrade doesn't cope with them
> (and upgrading without pg_upgrade is out of the question)

Just to clarify, pg_upgrade handles cases where the old/new clusters
either both have checksums, or neither ---- you can't change the
checksum setting during pg_upgrade.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +