> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:35:31 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> > I think there should be a 100% no data loss fail safe. >> >> Possibly we need to recalibrate our expectations here. The current >> situation is that PostgreSQL will not lose data if: >> >> 1. Your disk drive doesn't screw up (eg, lie about write >> complete, >> or just plain die on you). >> 2. Your kernel and filesystem don't screw up. >> 3. You follow the instructions about routine vacuuming. >> 4. You don't hit any bugs that we don't know about. >> > I'm not an expert but a happy user. My opinion is: > 1) there is nothing to do with #1 and #2. > 2) #4 is not a big problem because of the velocity developers fix > those when a bug is found. > > 3) All databases has some type of maintenance routine, in informix for > example we have (update statistics, and there are others for oracle) > of course they are for performance reasons, but vacuum is too for that > and additionally give us the XID wraparound. > So, to have a maintenance routine in PostgreSQL is not bad. *Bad* is > to have a DBA(1) with no clue about the tool is using. Tools that do > to much are an incentive in hire *no clue* people. > > (1) DBA: DataBase Administrator or DataBase Aniquilator???
PostgreSQL is such an awesome project. The only thing it seems to suffer from is a disregard for its users. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
