X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845119FCFCB for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:14:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78989-09 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:14:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DBA9FCFBF for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:14:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7SFDtgs028300; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:13:55 -0400 (EDT) To: "Christopher Browne" cc: "Ravindran G - TLS, Chennai." , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Isac Newton A - TLS, Chennai." Subject: Re: Postgre SQL 7.1 cygwin performance issue. In-reply-to: References: <012301731C23DE4DBFE035647C68F1CC03BE0092@sindhu.ctd.hcltech.com> <20060828141959.GD27526@alvh.no-ip.org> Comments: In-reply-to "Christopher Browne" message dated "Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:28:42 -0000" Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:13:55 -0400 Message-ID: <28299.1156778035@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200608/440 X-Sequence-Number: 20625 "Christopher Browne" writes: > On 8/28/06, Alvaro Herrera 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