Thread: Re: SourceForge & Postgres (fwd)
Do we need to do a bunch of testing on Beta3 before deployment or is it so much more stable that it absolutely will have no problems? We haven't had any problems with the ~Nov 17 snapshot, so we figure why mess with a good thing. Tim On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:23:30PM -0500, Jeff Duffy wrote: > Just wanted to make sure you saw this. > > Jeff > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:51:44 -0500 (EST) > From: Jan Wieck <janwieck@Yahoo.com> > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: SourceForge & Postgres > > Tim Perdue wrote: > > I thought the hackers team would be interested in knowing that SourceForge, as > > of Friday evening, is running on Postgres. Some 95,000 users and 12,500 Open > > Source projects are depending on your stuff, so I hope it's going to be stable > > for us. ;-) > > Tim, > > the PG core team is wondering if SourceForge might still be > running on a snapshot prior to BETA3, because there is a > major bug in it that could result in a complete corruption of > the system catalog. > > The bug is that the shared buffer cache might mix up blocks > between different databases. As long as you only use one > database, you're fairly safe. But a single 'createdb' or > 'createuser' on the same instance, which is connecting to > template1, could blow away your entire installation. It is > fixed in BETA3. > > My personal recommendation should be clear. > > > Jan > > -- Founder - PHPBuilder.com / Geocrawler.com Lead Developer - SourceForge VA Linux Systems
> Do we need to do a bunch of testing on Beta3 before deployment or is it > so much more stable that it absolutely will have no problems? > > We haven't had any problems with the ~Nov 17 snapshot, so we figure why mess > with a good thing. Well, seeing as we never tested the Nov 17 snapshot, and we have seriously tested beta3, I think you are certainly better off upgrading. We don't normally have people running snapshots. This is not because they are unstable, but because we don't trust them. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Tim Perdue <tim@sourceforge.net> writes:
> Do we need to do a bunch of testing on Beta3 before deployment or is it
> so much more stable that it absolutely will have no problems?
Well, it's more stable than any pre-beta snapshot is likely to be ...
> We haven't had any problems with the ~Nov 17 snapshot, so we figure why mess
> with a good thing.
That RelFileNodeEquals bug absolutely *will* eat you for breakfast
sooner or later. If you want to live dangerously, stick with the
snapshot you have, but I beg you to apply this patch:
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/include/storage/relfilenode.h,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -r1.3 -r1.4
*** pgsql/src/include/storage/relfilenode.h 2000/10/18 05:50:16 1.3
--- pgsql/src/include/storage/relfilenode.h 2001/01/09 02:15:16 1.4
***************
*** 17,22 **** #define RelFileNodeEquals(node1, node2) \ ((node1).relNode == (node2).relNode && \
! (node2).tblNode == (node2).tblNode) #endif /* RELFILENODE_H */
--- 17,22 ---- #define RelFileNodeEquals(node1, node2) \ ((node1).relNode == (node2).relNode && \
! (node1).tblNode == (node2).tblNode) #endif /* RELFILENODE_H */
regards, tom lane