| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | reina_ga(at)hotmail(dot)com (Tony Reina) |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do Petabyte storage solutions exist? |
| Date: | 2004-04-05 14:52:12 |
| Message-ID: | 11308.1081176732@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
reina_ga(at)hotmail(dot)com (Tony Reina) writes:
> The PostgreSQL limitations on the users' page
> (http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/limitations.html) still says
> that tables are limited to 16 TB, not 32 TB.
> Perhaps it should be updated?
There was some concern at the time it was written as to whether we were
sure that we'd fixed all the places that treated block numbers as signed
rather than unsigned ints. I still misdoubt that this should be
considered a tested and guaranteed-to-work thing. Those who have done
any testing of, eg, VACUUM FULL on greater-than-16TB tables, please
raise your hands?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-04-05 14:53:05 | Frequent 'deadlock detected' in 7.4 ... or just my bad code? |
| Previous Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2004-04-05 14:29:54 | debugging queries from psql |