Richard Troy wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>> (You know, of course, that my opinion is that no sane person would run a
>> production database on Windows in the first place. So the data-loss
>> risk to me seems less of a problem than the unexpected-failures problem.
>> It's not like there aren't a ton of other data-loss scenarios in that OS
>> that we can't do anything about...)
>>
>>
>>
>
> PLEASE OH PLEASE document every f-ing one of them! (And I don't mean
> document Windows issues as comments in the source code. Best would be in
> the official documentation/on a web page.) On occasion, I could *really*
> use such a list! (If such already exists, please point me at it!)
>
> Thing is, Tom, not everybody has the same level of information you have on
> the subject...
>
>
>
Please don't. At least not on the PostgreSQL web site nor in the docs.
And no, I don't run my production servers on Windows either.
For good or ill, we made a decision years ago to do a proper Windows
port. I think that it's actually worked out reasonably well. All
operating systems have warts. Not long ago I tended to advise people not
to run mission critical Postgresql on Linux unless they were *very*
careful, due to the over-commit issue.
In fact, I don't trust any OS. I use dumps and backups and replication
to protect myself from them all.
In the present instance, the data loss risk is largely theoretical, as I
understand it, as we don't expect a genuine EACCESS error.
cheers
andrew