On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> Hmm, that sounds a bit worrying (the nasty bugs, that is)... Slony 1.0.5
> has worked pretty well for me up to now, but now the application people
> are starting to ask for postgresql 8 as that should help performance, they
> say. I say they should fix their application, but do they listen.... :-)
PostgreSQL 8.x series actually does have significant performance
advantages for even correctly-written applications, because 8.0 is
where the bgwriter was introduced, which should cause significant
reductions in I/O storms from checkpointing. 8.1 improves on the
foundation laid in 8.0, and also has a number of other fixes that do
something about the context-switching problems. Both of those were
serious issues in every previous PostgreSQL version, so it is indeed
time to upgrade.
As for Slony, the bug problems have mostly been subtle things. The
point is more generally, though, that it's a critical piece of your
infrastructure, and there is not a long history of experience with
it. Because Debian has such strict rules about upgrade packages
after freeze (a policy of which I generally approve, BTW), you can
find yourself living with a possibly broken package for a long time.
So even though generally I'm not a fan of deviating from the
standard stable package, if you're going to use a packaged slony, I
urge you to be ready to backport a new version.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If they don't do anything, we don't need their acronym.
--Josh Hamilton, on the US FEMA
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
