Re: PITR Dead horse?
Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
To: <ntufar@pisem.net>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2004-02-05T09:01:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nicolai Tufar [mailto:ntufar@pisem.net] > Sent: 05 February 2004 08:15 > To: Dave Page > Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PITR Dead horse? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Page [mailto:dpage@vale-housing.co.uk] Well I've > only been > > using PostgreSQL since 1997 and the *only* release > I > > ever had problems with was 6.3.2. We also use(d) Informix SE, DB2, > > Unidata and SQL Server and only Informix and Unidata come > close to the > > robustness of PostgreSQL - and they're not the ones we need > to worry > > about. > > Don't know. But apparently different users will have > different demands From a database. Of course, but I would argue that my claim that PostgreSQL is reliable is backed up by the lack of people posting messages like 'we had a powercut and now my DB is hosed'. > > Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be continually looking to improve > > things, but I don't think this is quite the problem you imply. > > For the customers I am dealing with it is quite a problem, believe me. Do they have specific problems with the reliability of PostgreSQL then? Perhaps you could post details of how things have gone wrong for them (assuming you haven't already - I don't recall anything on -hackers recently). Regards, Dave