On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Shaun Thomas <stho...@peak6.com> wrote: > On 09/12/2011 03:44 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> The PostgreSQL team works REALLY hard to prevent any kind of >> corruption scenario from rearing its ugly head, so when the word >> corruption pops up I start to wonder about the system (hardware >> wise) someone is using, > > > You've apparently never used early versions of EnterpriseDB. ;) > > Kidding aside, it's apparently been a while since I read that particular > part of the manual. The error I *was* familiar with was from the 8.0 manual: > > "WARNING: some databases have not been vacuumed in 1613770184 transactions > HINT: Better vacuum them within 533713463 transactions, or you may have a > wraparound failure." > > Ever since the early days, I've been so paranoid about regular vacuuming, > I'm probably still a little overcautious. > > So, my bad. Having a database down for a few hours isn't exactly desirable, > but it's certainly not corruption. :)
No biggie, more a question of semantics. Just a trigger word for me. I started with pgsql 6.5.2 so I know ALL ABOUT corruption. hehe. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
