Re: quick review

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Molle Bestefich <molle(dot)bestefich(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: quick review
Date: 2006-11-21 21:41:23
Message-ID: 1164145283.24113.153.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > Well I certainly can't argue with that :) but it is a really hard
> > argument to make to the customer. These are customers who have spent
> > many more times your and my salaries on software and needed these
> > *repair* tools in the past.
>
> OK, so do we give them a /bin/true and go away? How do we address this?
>

Heh... Good question. We can't use the argument that we don't corrupt
stuff, cause it does happen. It may not be PostgreSQL's fault, it likely
isn't... but the end result is PostgreSQL is corrupted and needs to be
fixed.

The common way to do that is dump/reload whatever is bad or look for
specific rows etc...

What do you do when looking at a 300 million rows table? Outages just
are not that keen in today's world.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-11-21 22:20:30 Re: backup + restore fails
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-11-21 21:39:20 Re: quick review