From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>
Cc: Ravindran G - TLS, Chennai. <ravindran_g@hcl.in>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Isac Newton A - TLS, Chennai." <isacnewtona@hcl.in>
Subject: Re: Postgre SQL 7.1 cygwin performance issue.
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:13:55 -0400
Message-ID: <28299.1156778035@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d6d6637f0608280728l2dc87be6m573fa31d7974bde6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <012301731C23DE4DBFE035647C68F1CC03BE0092@sindhu.ctd.hcltech.com>
<20060828141959.GD27526@alvh.no-ip.org>
<d6d6637f0608280728l2dc87be6m573fa31d7974bde6@mail.gmail.com>
"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@gmail.com> writes:
> On 8/28/06, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> There's no solution short of upgrading.
> That's a little too negative. There is at least one alternative,
> possibly two...
But both of those would probably involve work comparable to an upgrade.
There is another reason for not encouraging these folk to stay on 7.1
indefinitely, which is that 7.1 still has the transaction ID wraparound
problem. It *will* --- not might, WILL --- eat their data someday.
Without knowing anything about their transaction rate, I can't say
whether that will happen tomorrow or not for many years, but insisting
on staying on 7.1 is a dangerous game.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, cbbrowne@gmail.com, ravindran_g@hcl.in, isacnewtona@hcl.in
Subject: Re: Postgre SQL 7.1 cygwin performance issue.
In-Reply-To: <28299.1156778035@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox