Re: [GENERAL] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45A6C298.80107@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. (Richard Troy <rtroy@ScienceTools.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.
Re: [GENERAL] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Troy wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > > ...snip... > >> (You know, of course, that my opinion is that no sane person would run a >> production database on Windows in the first place. So the data-loss >> risk to me seems less of a problem than the unexpected-failures problem. >> It's not like there aren't a ton of other data-loss scenarios in that OS >> that we can't do anything about...) >> >> >> > > PLEASE OH PLEASE document every f-ing one of them! (And I don't mean > document Windows issues as comments in the source code. Best would be in > the official documentation/on a web page.) On occasion, I could *really* > use such a list! (If such already exists, please point me at it!) > > Thing is, Tom, not everybody has the same level of information you have on > the subject... > > > Please don't. At least not on the PostgreSQL web site nor in the docs. And no, I don't run my production servers on Windows either. For good or ill, we made a decision years ago to do a proper Windows port. I think that it's actually worked out reasonably well. All operating systems have warts. Not long ago I tended to advise people not to run mission critical Postgresql on Linux unless they were *very* careful, due to the over-commit issue. In fact, I don't trust any OS. I use dumps and backups and replication to protect myself from them all. In the present instance, the data loss risk is largely theoretical, as I understand it, as we don't expect a genuine EACCESS error. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: