Message-ID: <462E7317.2070707@mochima.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:13:59 -0400
From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: View is not using a table index
References: <75312DFA648AF74D8A236E5269BFBE4B04292F00@ncrx3.ncr.int.ec.gc.ca>
	<462E2537.2020706@archonet.com>
	<75312DFA648AF74D8A236E5269BFBE4B04292F02@ncrx3.ncr.int.ec.gc.ca>
	<6365.1177438176@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <6365.1177438176@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> Dan Shea <dan.shea@ec.gc.ca> writes:
>   
>> You make it sound so easy.  Our database size is at 308 GB.
>>     
>
> Well, if you can't update major versions that's understandable; that's
> why we're still maintaining the old branches.  But there is no excuse
> for not running a reasonably recent sub-release within your branch.
> Read the release notes, and consider what you will say if one of the
> several data-loss-causing bugs that were fixed long ago eats your DB:
>   

Was it Feb 2002?  The Slammer effectively shut down the entire Internet,
due to a severe bug in Microsucks SQL Server...  A fix for that buffer
overflow bug had been available since August 2001;  yet 90% of all SQL
servers on the planet were unpatched.

As much as it pains me to admit it, the lesson about the importance of
being a conscious, competent administrator takes precedence over the
lesson of how unbelievably incompetent and irresponsible and etc. etc.
Microsoft is to have such a braindead bug in such a high-profile and
high-price product.

Tom said it really nicely --- do stop and think about it;  the day arrives
when you *lost* all those 308 GB of valuable data;  and it was only in
your hands to have prevented it!  Would you want to see the light of
*that* day?

Carlos
--