> On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 18:54, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:20:21PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > > pgpool is a connection pool; it has (almost) nothing to do with
> > > > replication. It certainly doesn't work to provide any kind of data
> > > > security on a RAID0 setup.
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:20:21PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > > pgpool is a connection pool; it has (almost) nothing to do with
> > > > replication. It certainly doesn't work to provide any kind of data
> > > > security on a RAID0 setup.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not arguing against anything
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:20:21PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > pgpool is a connection pool; it has (almost) nothing to do with
> > replication. It certainly doesn't work to provide any kind of data
> > security on a RAID0 setup.
> >
> > I'm not arguing against anything people have suggested, o
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 18:54, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:20:21PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > pgpool is a connection pool; it has (almost) nothing to do with
> > > replication. It certainly doesn't work to provide any kind of data
> > > security on a RAID0 setup.
> > >
>
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 18:16, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:43:56AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:15, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:43:56AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:15, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:15, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo wrote:
> > > > Xlog will be the only believable data if your system cr
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo wrote:
> > > Xlog will be the only believable data if your system crashed. So it is a
> > > dangerous practice to put xlog s
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:40, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo wrote:
> > Xlog will be the only believable data if your system crashed. So it is a
> > dangerous practice to put xlog stuff in RAID0.
>
> No more or less so than putting your main database
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>No more or less so than putting your main database on RAID0. If any
>drive fails, you lose everything.
perhaps it's time to start writing it [^r]A[^i]D 0 to try and make
the point.
richard
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:47:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhuo wrote:
> Xlog will be the only believable data if your system crashed. So it is a
> dangerous practice to put xlog stuff in RAID0.
No more or less so than putting your main database on RAID0. If any
drive fails, you lose everything.
--
Jim
Xlog will be the only believable data if
your system crashed. So it is a dangerous practice to put xlog stuff in
RAID0.
Regards,
Qingqing
"Carlos Benkendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hi,
Does it make any sense to change the pg_xlog position
12 matches
Mail list logo