On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:35:27AM +0900, Joel wrote:
>
> I'm looking at the release notes for 7.2 and thinking that, when we make
> the jump, jumping to 7.4 will probably be the best bet.
Given that 7.2 is pretty much end of life now, I certainly wouldn't
adopt it. If you're going through the p
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:01:20 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Any thoughts on the urgency of the move?
>
> How large is your pg_log file? 7.1 was the last release that had the
> transaction ID wraparound limitation (after 4G transactions your
> data
Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any thoughts on the urgency of the move?
How large is your pg_log file? 7.1 was the last release that had the
transaction ID wraparound limitation (after 4G transactions your
database fails...). If pg_log is approaching a gig, you had better
do something PDQ.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:30:49 +0200
Ian Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:22:55 +0900, Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I seem to remember reading a post on this, but searching marc does not
> > seem to bring it up immediately.
> >
> > Company BBS is on postgresql, but
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:22:55 +0900, Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I seem to remember reading a post on this, but searching marc does not
> seem to bring it up immediately.
>
> Company BBS is on postgresql, but it's still at 7.1. The guy in charge
> of it wants some ballpark estimates and warni
I seem to remember reading a post on this, but searching marc does not
seem to bring it up immediately.
Company BBS is on postgresql, but it's still at 7.1. The guy in charge
of it wants some ballpark estimates and warnings about upgrading to 7.4
so he doesn't have to worry about the recent vulner
