"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd vote for a new list dedicated to discussing "Robustness" issues,
> such as PITR and the fsync/sync issues. IMHO, PostgreSQL has the
> Functionality and Performance, it just needs some rock-solid analysis of
> where-things-can-go-wrong with it, so that the business data centre
> people will be able to use it with absolute confidence...even if the
> answer is "we've got every base covered". For me, the issues about
> robustness are as much to do with risk reduction and confidence building
> as they are about specific features in that area. [Wow, I expect some
> flames on those comments!]
You're right. Exactly where do you expect to find the expertise and
interest to do such an analysis? On pghackers, that's where. There's
no reason to invent a new mailing list for what should be a continuing
topic in pghackers. And to the extent that you were to move such a
discussion somewhere else, you'd just risk losing the attention of the
pair of eyeballs that might notice a hole in your analysis.
> Not hung up on the name either, just something that indicates
> breadth-of-scope, e.g. Availability or Data Protection or Resilience
> etc..; maybe the Advocates would like to name it? It might even be a
> press-release: "PostgreSQL community focuses new efforts towards
> Robustness features for its next major release".
I think such a press release would be counterproductive, as it would
immediately make people question whether we have reliability problems.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
