On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems some junior electrician in Panama pulled the wrong circuit
> breaker ... and then the mail.postgresql.org server spent an
> unreasonable number of hours fsck'ing. (Why is Marc a FreeBSD fan
> anyway? Don't ask me, I work for Red Hat.) Anyhow, due
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just use FreeBSD 5 - background fsck.
>
> Apparently Marc doesn't think FreeBSD 5 is stable enough to use yet.
Trust me, if I felt confident enough with it, we'd already be moved ...
after Xmas, hopefu
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Just use FreeBSD 5 - background fsck.
Trust me, I'm soo looking forward to 5.x to be rated 'stable enough
for a production server' .. I spent a good portion of yesterday aft
chatting on the -current mailng list about how slow fsck was :(
Apparently Marc doesn't think FreeBSD 5 is stable enough to use yet.
(Having lit the touchpaper, I shall now retire to a safe distance ;-))
Well now I have to get into this ;). I would like to offer some lighter
fluid
and state that this wouldn't have been a problem if we were using
RH-9 with
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just use FreeBSD 5 - background fsck.
Apparently Marc doesn't think FreeBSD 5 is stable enough to use yet.
(Having lit the touchpaper, I shall now retire to a safe distance ;-))
regards, tom lane
-
Just use FreeBSD 5 - background fsck.
Chris
Tom Lane wrote:
It seems some junior electrician in Panama pulled the wrong circuit
breaker ... and then the mail.postgresql.org server spent an
unreasonable number of hours fsck'ing. (Why is Marc a FreeBSD fan
anyway? Don't ask me, I work for Red Ha
It seems some junior electrician in Panama pulled the wrong circuit
breaker ... and then the mail.postgresql.org server spent an
unreasonable number of hours fsck'ing. (Why is Marc a FreeBSD fan
anyway? Don't ask me, I work for Red Hat.) Anyhow, due to the loss
of project communications for toda
