On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Scott Whitney <swhitney@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for all the information, guys. I think Tom was right. Our application > was doing a couple of full vacs at the same time. It's weird that we didn't > run into this in the past. > > You're all absolutely right about the upgrading, but in our environment, > it's not 2-3 minutes. It's 2-3 weeks. I've got to fully vet the app on the > platform internally with full test plans, etc, even for the most minor > upgrades; corp policy. That's preparation time versus execution time. While it may take 2-3 weeks to get the testing done, once done, the actual down time is minimal. I would suggest that your current testing methodology is horribly flawed. I know it was foisted on you by outside forces, so it's not really "your" idea. But you know what I mean. There's the cost of possible data loss / down time due to unforseen problems caused by an update, and there's the cost of possible data loss / down time due to known flaws in your current code. If your testing methodology was strict enough, it would have found such flaws that were fixed in subsequent releases, but it hasn't. Meantime, you spend weeks testing for possible new bugs, while running known broken code with real data loss / down time inducing bugs. There's a reasonable cost / benefits analysis, and right now, someone's set the cost far too high for far too few benefits. Been where you are, and I know how much it sucks. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
