Do we need to do a bunch of testing on Beta3 before deployment or is it
so much more stable that it absolutely will have no problems?

We haven't had any problems with the ~Nov 17 snapshot, so we figure why mess
with a good thing.

Tim



On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:23:30PM -0500, Jeff Duffy wrote:
> Just wanted to make sure you saw this.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:51:44 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jan Wieck <janwieck@Yahoo.com>
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: SourceForge & Postgres
> 
> Tim Perdue wrote:
> > I thought the hackers team would be interested in knowing that SourceForge, as
> > of Friday evening, is running on Postgres. Some 95,000 users and 12,500 Open
> > Source projects are depending on your stuff, so I hope it's going to be stable
> > for us. ;-)
> 
> Tim,
> 
>     the  PG  core team is wondering if SourceForge might still be
>     running on a snapshot prior to  BETA3,  because  there  is  a
>     major bug in it that could result in a complete corruption of
>     the system catalog.
> 
>     The bug is that the shared buffer cache might mix  up  blocks
>     between  different  databases.  As  long  as you only use one
>     database, you're fairly safe.  But  a  single  'createdb'  or
>     'createuser'  on  the  same  instance, which is connecting to
>     template1, could blow away your entire  installation.  It  is
>     fixed in BETA3.
> 
>     My personal recommendation should be clear.
> 
> 
> Jan
> 
> 

-- 
Founder - PHPBuilder.com / Geocrawler.com
Lead Developer - SourceForge
VA Linux Systems

Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:37:48 -0800
Tim Perdue <tim@sourceforge.net>
Re: SourceForge & Postgres (fwd)
> Do we need to do a bunch of testing on Beta3 before deployment or is it
> so much more stable that it absolutely will have no problems?
> 
> We haven't had any problems with the ~Nov 17 snapshot, so we figure why mess
> with a good thing.

Well, seeing as we never tested the Nov 17 snapshot, and we have
seriously tested beta3, I think you are certainly better off upgrading.

We don't normally have people running snapshots.  This is not because
they are unstable, but because we don't trust them.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  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

Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:23:55 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Re: SourceForge & Postgres (fwd)
Tim Perdue <tim@sourceforge.net> writes:
> Do we need to do a bunch of testing on Beta3 before deployment or is it
> so much more stable that it absolutely will have no problems?

Well, it's more stable than any pre-beta snapshot is likely to be ...

> We haven't had any problems with the ~Nov 17 snapshot, so we figure why mess
> with a good thing.

That RelFileNodeEquals bug absolutely *will* eat you for breakfast
sooner or later.  If you want to live dangerously, stick with the
snapshot you have, but I beg you to apply this patch:

===================================================================
RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/include/storage/relfilenode.h,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -r1.3 -r1.4
*** pgsql/src/include/storage/relfilenode.h     2000/10/18 05:50:16     1.3
--- pgsql/src/include/storage/relfilenode.h     2001/01/09 02:15:16     1.4
***************
*** 17,22 ****
  
  #define       RelFileNodeEquals(node1, node2) \
        ((node1).relNode == (node2).relNode && \
!       (node2).tblNode == (node2).tblNode)
  
  #endif        /* RELFILENODE_H */
--- 17,22 ----
  
  #define       RelFileNodeEquals(node1, node2) \
        ((node1).relNode == (node2).relNode && \
!        (node1).tblNode == (node2).tblNode)
  
  #endif        /* RELFILENODE_H */


			regards, tom lane

Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:07:20 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Re: SourceForge & Postgres (fwd) 