Heikki Linnakangas schrieb:
Lossing data is very bad, the solution provided by Robert is really
simple. I support Roberts approach.
you support changing localhost to be something other than 127.0.0.1 to
hack around a poorly designed application?!? seriously?
No, i support that PG should be able to not lossing data because of an
easily catchable missconfiguration of the underlying system.
You won't lose data. There are safeguards in place to print warnings in
the log when you approach transaction wrap-around, and after a certain
point the system will stop accepting new transactions, to prevent data
loss.
The manual says that autovacuum protects againt loss of very old data:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/routine-vacuuming.html
So either your statement is wrong or the manual. ;) If there is the
possibility to lose data just because of this kind of missconfiguration,
we should accept Roberts patch.
Greetings,
Torsten
--
http://www.dddbl.de - ein Datenbank-Layer, der die Arbeit mit 8
verschiedenen Datenbanksystemen abstrahiert,
Queries von Applikationen trennt und automatisch die Query-Ergebnisse
auswerten kann.
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
