Обсуждение: PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
PostgreSQL 7.0 has been a huge success. Bug reports since release have been so few that we thought our e-mail system wasn't working properly. Turns out things are very quiet because the release is so stable. So, those people waiting on the fence to try 7.0, go ahead. It is ready for prime-time. Of course, we have big plans for 7.1, and will start on that shortly. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
First of all, Let me say I dont have much experience with postgresql and I've done only few tests, so excuse me for any wrong comments i make. I think the following things should be improved in postgresql now: - reliability - Documentation Sometimes a table doesnt exist anymore but it's still listed in pg_class table, or the opposite, or you did a physical backup and you wanna restore the db, and other things that could be improved and more documented. Some crashes we tested (like powering down the system while running with flush off) were just fatal to some tables, and after restart we got the 'backend terminated...' message when trying to use the table. We also tried a dump after restarting, but other processes that started after the dump were frozen, waiting for the dump to complete. I also miss something like mysql's isamchk and a better control of the security, with 1 system table controlling passwords, hosts allowed and denied, and anything for the users of all databases. just my 2 cents...... regards, At 23:20 20/05/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >PostgreSQL 7.0 has been a huge success. Bug reports since release have >been so few that we thought our e-mail system wasn't working properly. >Turns out things are very quiet because the release is so stable. > >So, those people waiting on the fence to try 7.0, go ahead. It is >ready for prime-time. > >Of course, we have big plans for 7.1, and will start on that shortly. > >-- > Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > Gustavo Henrique Maultasch gustavoh@sysadmin.com.br
On Wed, 24 May 2000, Gustavo Henrique wrote: > First of all, > Let me say I dont have much experience with postgresql and I've > done only few tests, so excuse me for any wrong comments i make. > > I think the following things should be improved in postgresql now: > > - reliability > - Documentation > > Sometimes a table doesnt exist anymore but it's still listed in > pg_class table, or the opposite, or you did a physical backup and you > wanna restore the db, and other things that could be improved and more > documented. example? some way to recreate for debugging? > Some crashes we tested (like powering down the system while running > with flush off) were just fatal to some tables, and after restart we > got the 'backend terminated...' message when trying to use the table. > We also tried a dump after restarting, but other processes that > started after the dump were frozen, waiting for the dump to complete. operating system? I've had 'hard crashes' on my servers in the past, with older versions of PostgreSQL, and not seen this :( > I also miss something like mysql's isamchk and a better control of the > security, with 1 system table controlling passwords, hosts allowed and > denied, and anything for the users of all databases. pg_hba.conf?
Gustavo Henrique wrote: > > First of all, > Let me say I dont have much experience with postgresql and I've > done only few tests, so excuse me for any wrong comments i make. > > I think the following things should be improved in postgresql now: > > - reliability Have you had real reliability issues or theoretical ones ? On what version ? > - Documentation Could you be more specific ? What is it you are missing in docs - maybe better organization ? > > Sometimes a table doesnt exist anymore but it's still listed in > pg_class table, or the opposite, Does it happen under normal use or must you do some of the dirty tricks with "flush off" ? > or you did a physical backup and you wanna > restore the db, and other things that could be improved and more documented. > > Some crashes we tested (like powering down the system while > running with flush off) were just fatal to some tables, Yes with "flush off" they are supposed to be fatal. Flush off is a performance hack for computers with UPSes. > > I also miss something like mysql's isamchk What does it do ? > and a better control of the security, with 1 system table > controlling passwords, hosts allowed and denied, and > anything for the users of all databases. Currently this is held in pg_hba.conf mainly due to performance issues. (IMHO these performance issues would really be an issue under DoS attack ;) > just my 2 cents...... Thanks! -------- Hannu