On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 07:36:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
2. I disagree with way the above statistics were computed. That eleven
million-year figure gets whittled down pretty quickly when you
factor in all the sources of corruption, even
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:58:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Taking an
arbitrary 32 bits of a MD5 would likely be less collision prone than
using a 32-bit CRC, and it appears faster as well.
... but that would be an algorithm that you know
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MD5 is a cryptographic hash, which means (AFAIK) that ideally it is
impossible to produce a collision using any other method than brute
force attempts.
True but irrelevant. What we need to worry about is the probability
that a random error will be
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Taking an
arbitrary 32 bits of a MD5 would likely be less collision prone than
using a 32-bit CRC, and it appears faster as well.
... but that would be an algorithm that you know NOTHING about the
properties of. What is your basis for asserting
Bruce Guenter wrote:
CRCs are designed to catch N-bit errors (ie N bits in a row with their
values flipped). N is (IIRC) the number of bits in the CRC minus one.
So, a 32-bit CRC can catch all 31-bit errors. That's the only guarantee
a CRC gives. Everything else has a 1 in 2^32-1 chance
Horst Herb wrote:
This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
till next monday.
I have been experimenting with CRCs for the past 6 month in our database for
internal logging purposes. Downloaded a lot of hash
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:40:49PM +1100, Horst Herb wrote:
This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
till next monday.
As the logging might include large data blocks, especially now that
we can TOAST our
This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
I can find CRC func).
Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
Thanks! What about Copyrights/licence?
Vadim
"Mikheev, Vadim" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
I can find CRC func).
Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
Thanks! What about Copyrights/licence?
Should fit fine under our regular BSD license. CRC as such is long
since in the
This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
till next monday.
I have been experimenting with CRCs for the past 6 month in
our database for internal logging purposes. Downloaded a lot of
hash libraries, tried
"Mikheev, Vadim" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would strongly suggest to use strong hashes like RIPEMD or
MD5 instead of CRC-32 and the like.
Other opinions? Also, we shouldn't forget licence issues.
I agree with whoever commented that crypto hashes are silly for this
application. A 64-bit
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:35:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Remember that we are already sitting atop hardware that's really
pretty reliable, despite the carping that's been going on in this
thread. All that we have to do is detect the infrequent case where a
block of data didn't get written
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
2. I disagree with way the above statistics were computed. That eleven
million-year figure gets whittled down pretty quickly when you
factor in all the sources of corruption, even without crashes.
(Power failures are only one of many
Zeugswetter Andreas SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but there would need to be a way to verify the last page or
record from txlog when running on crap hardware.
How exactly *do* we determine where the end of the valid log data is,
anyway?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but there would need to be a way to verify the last page or
record from txlog when running on crap hardware.
How exactly *do* we determine where the end of the valid log data is,
anyway?
Couldn't you use a CRC ?
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:15:26AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but there would need to be a way to verify the last page or
record from txlog when running on crap hardware.
How exactly *do* we determine where the end of the valid log data is,
Bruce Guenter wrote:
- Assume that a CRC is a guarantee. A CRC would be a good addition to
help ensure the data wasn't broken by flakey drive firmware, but
doesn't guarantee consistency.
Even a CRC per transaction (it could be a nice END record) ?
Bye!
--
Daniele
"Mikheev, Vadim" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
I can find CRC func).
Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
15. Appendix: Sample CRC Code
The following sample code represents a practical implementation of
the CRC (Cyclic
Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
Drat, I dropped the table declarations:
/* Table of CRCs of all 8-bit messages. */
unsigned long crc_table[256];
/* Flag: has the table been computed? Initially false. */
int crc_table_computed = 0;
As far as I know (and have tested in excess) Informix IDS
does survive any power loss without leaving the db in a
corrupted state. The basic technology is, that it only relys
on writes to one "file" (raw device in that case), the txlog,
which is directly written. All writes to the txlog are
On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would
allow others to co-op
On Sunday 03 December 2000 12:41, mlw wrote:
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
a few flaws... ;)
While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I
On Sunday 03 December 2000 21:49, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
I've been trying to follow this thread, and seem to have missed where
someone arrived at the conclusion that we were proprietarizing(word?) this
I have missed that part as well.
... we do apologize that it didn't get out
I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of
ERserver is related to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server?
Let me clear things:
1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version = 6.5
2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Sectorbase.com,
not
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Martin A. Marques wrote:
On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
all, the PG community has long acknowleged
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions,
GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times,
and I'm sure will continue to be said "changing the license to GPL is a
non-discussable issue" ...
I've declined
PostgreSQL out there for everyone.. I
hope.
Just my $0.02 worth..
-Mitch
- Original Message -
From: "Lamar Owen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "PostgreSQL Development" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
The
On Tuesday 05 December 2000 18:03, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the
BSD?
its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions,
GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times,
Mitch Vincent wrote:
Regardless of what license is best, could the license even be changed now? I
mean, some of the initial Berkeley code is still in there in some sense and
I would think that the original license (BSD I assume) of the initial source
code release would have to be somehow
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mitch Vincent wrote:
Regardless of what license is best, could the license even be changed now? I
mean, some of the initial Berkeley code is still in there in some sense and
I would think that the original license (BSD I assume) of the initial
Judging by the information below, taken *directly* from PostgreSQL, Inc.
website, it appears that they will be releasing all code into the main
source code branch -- with the exception of "Advanced Replication and
Distributed Information capabilities" (to which capabilities they are
referring is
In fact, it might seem to be common courtesy...
An odd choice of words coming from you Don.
We are offering our services and expertise to a community outside
-hackers, as a business formed in a way that this new community expects
to see. Nothing special or sinister here. Other than it seems to
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
At 11:59 PM 12/3/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
the sanctity of the *core* server is *always*
foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ...
What happens if financially things aren't entirely rosy with your
company?
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
A recent example of non-sinister change in another area is the work done
to release 7.0.3. This is a release which would not have happened in
previous cycles, since we are so close to beta on 7.1. But GB paid Tom
Lane to work on it as part of *their*
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Nathan Myers wrote:
Second, the transaction log is not, as has been noted far too frequently
for Vince's comfort, really written atomically. The OS has promised
to write it atomically, and given the opportunity, it will. If you pull
the plug, all promises are broken.
Don Baccus writes:
How long until the entire code base gets co-opted?
Yeah so what? Nobody's forcing you to use, buy, or pay attention to any
such efforts. The market will determine whether the release model of
PostgreSQL, Inc. appeals to customers. Open source software is a
privilege, and
Ron Chmara wrote:
As it is, any company trying to make a closed version of an open source
product has some _massive_ work to do. Manuals. Documentation. Sales.
Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. Figuring
out how to prevent open source from stealing the
Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention.
Figuring
out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating
^^
features. And building a _product_.
Oops. You didn't really mean that, did
How long until the entire code base gets co-opted?
Yeah so what? Nobody's forcing you to use, buy, or pay attention to any
such efforts. The market will determine whether the release model of
PostgreSQL, Inc. appeals to customers. Open source software is a
privilege, and nobody has the
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
a few flaws... ;)
While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have
contributed to other environments. The
At 11:00 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would
allow others to co-op the code
I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related
to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things:
(not based on WAL)
That's wasn't clear from the blurb.
Still, this notion that PG, Inc will start producing closed-source products
poisons the well.
ostgreSQL Development"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
"We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to
the open source community before the mid
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
mlw writes:
There are hundreds (thousands?) of people that have contributed to the
development of Postgres, either directly with code, or beta testing,
with the assumption that they are benefiting a community. Many would
probably not have done so if they had
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Adam Haberlach wrote:
In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over
this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we
are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up?
no skin off my back:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
I *am* one of those volunteers
Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now.
Okay, so let me get this
Don Baccus wrote:
At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
few years by volunteers.
imho it does not,
Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so
hard that it could only come
mlw wrote:
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
a few flaws... ;)
While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have
contributed to other
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
I *am* one of those volunteers
Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible
Hannu Krosing wrote:
I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
cheat the spirit of open source "just a little"
"Gary MacDougall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start,
you'd have to say those people made "good money".
I'm talking about the business as such, not the IPO where the price
went stratospheric (we were priced like we were earning 1 or 2
Gary MacDougall wrote:
No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
Actually, your not legally bound to anything if
No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
Actually, your not legally bound to anything if you write "new" additional
code,
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 05:17:36PM -0500, mlw wrote:
... if I write code which is dependent on
the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
This is short and I will say no more:
The entire social
Adam Haberlach wrote:
In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over
this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we
are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up?
pgsql-yawn, where any of them can happen as often and
mlw wrote: [heavily edited]
No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what
At 5:17 PM -0500 12/3/00, mlw wrote:
I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use
it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand
how anyone could think differently.
Yeah, it really sucks when companies that are in buisness to make money by
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
I *am* one of those volunteers
Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
You were
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, mlw wrote:
Hannu Krosing wrote:
I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
cheat the
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
ever you want.
Thats a given.
okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived
from
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:49:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
IIRC, this thread woke up on someone complaining about PostgreSQl inc
promising
to release some code for replication in mid-october and asking for
confirmation
that this
I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support replication.
Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I have a feeling
the approach may not be the one I was hoping for.
There are no core patches required to support replication. This has been
said already, but perhaps
;Don Baccus"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; "PostgreSQL Development"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
uncompensat
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the last 3 years what company that you
know of didn't consider an IPO part of the "business and such". Most
tech companies that have been formed in the last 4 - 5 years have one
thing on the brain--IPO. It's the #1 thing (sadly) that they care about.
I only wished
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas
himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his
part.
Actually, Thomas said:
Thomas Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It
]; "PostgreSQL Development"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
uncompensated parties, then yo
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
ever you want.
Thats a given.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right
cus"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; "PostgreSQL Development"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer.
I'm only being sort of chee
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:00:12AM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Nathan Myers wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
v7.1 should improve crash recovery ...
... with the WAL stuff that Vadim is producing, you'll be able to
At 01:06 PM 12/3/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Open source software is a
privilege,
I admit that I don't subscribe to Stallman's "source to software is a
right" argument. That's far off my reality map.
and nobody has the right to call someone "irresponsible"
because they want to get
At 03:35 PM 11/30/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
v7.1 should improve crash recovery ...
... with the WAL stuff that Vadim is producing, you'll be able to
recover up until the point that the power cable was pulled out of
the
Don Baccus writes:
Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area?
Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/.
I've not seen discussions about it here, and the two of the three most
active developers (Jan and Tom) work for Great Bridge, not PostgreSQL,
Inc...
Vadim Mikheev and
From: "Nathan Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
[snip]
The logging in 7.1 protects transactions against many sources of
database crash, but not necessarily against OS crash, and certainly
not against power failure. (You might get
At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Don Baccus writes:
Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area?
Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/.
"Advanced Replication and Distributed Information capabilities are also under
development to meet specific
business and
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 11:31:37AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote:
At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Don Baccus writes:
Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area?
Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/.
snip
Boy, I can just imagine the uproar this
At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
"We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to
the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time
we are considering requests from a number of development companies and
venture capital groups to join
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:51:15PM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 11:31:37AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote:
At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Don Baccus writes:
Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area?
Good question... See
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
...
Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative,
leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems
under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a
long time to just sit
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:47:19PM -0800, Adam Haberlach wrote:
Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of
people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye
toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working
on that". It's
PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan.
I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer
as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this
signals for their future direction.
Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 07:32:14PM -0800, Don Baccus wrote:
At 02:58 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan.
I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer
as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry
This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
few years by volunteers.
imho it does not, and if somehow you can read that into it then you have
a much different understanding of language than I. I *am* one of those
volunteers, and know that the hundreds of hours I have
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan.
I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer
as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this
signals for their future direction.
Hmm. What has kept replication
And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete
with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company
to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc.
Mac OS X.
;-)
-pmb
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"4 out of 5 people
At 09:56 PM 12/2/00 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote:
...
And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete
with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company
to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc.
Want to make
At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
few years by volunteers.
imho it does not,
Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so
hard that it could only come about if someone were willing
At 09:29 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Adam Haberlach wrote:
Red herring, and you know it. The question isn't whether or not your business
generates income, but how it generates income.
So far, Open Source doesn't. The VA Linux IPO made ME some income,
but I'm not sure that was part of their
There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would
allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations.
It is
Don Baccus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
few years by volunteers.
imho it does not,
Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so
hard that it
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:54:23AM -0500, Alex Pilosov wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Nathan Myers wrote:
After a power outage on an active database, you may have corruption
at low levels of the system, and unless you have enormous redundancy
(and actually use it to verify everything) the
At 11:06 PM 11/30/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
As for replaying logs against a restored snapshot dump... AIUI, a
dump records tuples by OID, but the WAL refers to TIDs. Therefore,
the WAL won't work as a re-do log to recover your transactions
because the TIDs of the restored tables are
At 12:30 AM 12/1/00 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
For example, I would hope that EMC
disk systems handle power loss gracefully.
They must, their marketing literature says so :)
But if you buy ordinary
off the shelf PC hardware, you really do need to arrange for a UPS,
and some sort of
As for replaying logs against a restored snapshot dump... AIUI, a
dump records tuples by OID, but the WAL refers to TIDs. Therefore,
the WAL won't work as a re-do log to recover your transactions
because the TIDs of the restored tables are all different.
True for current
At 11:02 AM 12/1/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 06:39:57AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote:
Probably the best answer to the "what does WAL get us, if it doesn't
get us full recoverability" questions is to simply say "it's a
prerequisite to getting full recoverability, PG 7.1
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:13:28PM +1100, Philip Warner wrote:
You have raised some interesting issues regrading write-order etc. Can we
assume that when fsync *returns*, all records are written - though not
necessarily in the order that the IO's were executed?
Not with ordinary disks.
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 11:48:23AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote:
At 11:09 AM 12/1/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:01:15AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
If you need to restore from offsite backup you loose transactions
unless you transfer the WAL synchronously
At 12:56 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
(Remember, we're talking about what you could do *now*, with 7.1.
Presumably with 7.2 other options will open.)
Maybe *you* are :) Seriously, I'm thinking out loud about future
possibilities. Putting a lot of work into building up a temporary
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
At 03:25 PM 11/28/00 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote:
Mitch Vincent wrote:
This is one of the not-so-stomped boxes running PostgreSQL -- I've never
restarted PostgreSQL on it since
At 07:02 PM 11/30/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
v7.1 should improve crash recovery for situations like this ... you'll
still have to do a recovery of the data on corruption of this magnitude,
but at least with the WAL stuff that Vadim is producing, you'll be able to
recover up until the
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
