| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Rawnsley <ronz(at)ravensfield(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: version upgrade |
| Date: | 2004-09-01 17:04:18 |
| Message-ID: | F60B7771-FC38-11D8-AFE7-000393D1F76E@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 1, 2004, at 12:19 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> From my perspective, anyone who is running a 100GB,
> can't-be-down-for-a-day
> database and does not have more than 100GB free and/or a hot swap
> server has
> some *serious* priority problems.
Well, 100GB maybe excessive for this example. but I'm sure there are
plenty of running-on-a-shoe-string shops that don't have DB x 2 space
avail. Then again, those places are very likely the ones who will not
be upgrading.
but this isn't a problem specific to PG.. all db's suffer from it.. and
slony so far seems to provide the easiest, safest path for a PG
upgrade... in my case the problem is I do have another server with
plenty of room, but it doesn't have much CPU or RAM and cannot handle
the volume of live traffic the master gets. So I have no choice but to
plead my case and ask for some downtime. oh well.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Parker | 2004-09-01 17:34:57 | Re: PostgreSQL on z/OS |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2004-09-01 16:38:50 | Re: version upgrade |