4 ms·
Not the first time there’s been a PostgreSQL bug like this, like always it will get a regression test and the PGDG will be better for it. It’s not like other d
by snuxoll 4y ago
Not the first time there’s been a PostgreSQL bug like this, like always it will get a regression test and the PGDG will be better for it.
It’s not like other database products haven’t had very similar issues, either [https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/fix-data-corruption-occurs-in-clustered-index-when-you-run-online-index-rebuild-in-sql-server-2012-or-sql-server-2014-075b0c04-1260-1716-6b9d-737ada4f8686 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/fix-data-corruptio...]
Hell, last night I literally had a MSSQL server where Windows Server Failover Clustering randomly decided to delete all of the AlwaysOn Availability Group configurations from the node; along with random NTFS corruption (no unclean shutdown, SAN is fine) resulting in us having to restore master and msdb from backups before we could rejoin it to those AGs.
Bugs happen.
- rattray 4y agoSure. But notice how we're now comparing Postgres to MSSQL? Generally I think of it as head-and-shoulders better than it. I still do, but by a little less. That's okay. Did they act responsibly, fix it quickly, and communicate effectively? Yes, tremendously so – which makes me feel overall better about using Postgres generally. But, I'll feel ever so slightly more hesitant about adopting a major version shortly after it comes out next time. Again, that's okay.
- robertlagrant 4y ago> Again, that's okay. Don't need to be reassuring to HN commenters :)