| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this still accurate? |
| Date: | 2018-01-05 18:55:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20180105185527.awy3mv4ayr4chalm@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Steve Atkins wrote:
> It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large"
> databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits.
>
> Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the
> 4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
I'd just add a 0 to "40TB" and be done with it. We have larger
databases but this is a decent enough number.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-01-05 19:09:21 | Re: Is this still accurate? |
| Previous Message | Steve Atkins | 2018-01-05 18:33:23 | Re: Is this still accurate? |