Tue Feb 8 19:27:06 PST 2011
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] How sensible is turning off synchronous_commiton a Slony slave while leaving it on on the master?
- Next message: [Slony1-general] How sensible is turning off synchronous_commiton a Slony slave while leaving it on on the master?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2/8/2011 6:34 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:52:52PM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: >> Sadly, the number of users with<8.4 are really much bigger than the >> number of users with 8.4. > > I don't find this sad. I find this an indication that people have > things important to them in Postgres databases, and that they're > naturally conservative about touching those things. It's a kind of > victory when you have an installed base. > > (It's also a scourge, of course, but let's celebrate!) I also am not convinced yet that the time of dump+restore upgrades is over for good. I may change my mind about that in 5 years or so, but right now, I'd say let's be prepared. Jan -- Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] How sensible is turning off synchronous_commiton a Slony slave while leaving it on on the master?
- Next message: [Slony1-general] How sensible is turning off synchronous_commiton a Slony slave while leaving it on on the master?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list