From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Flatley <FLATLEYT(at)outlook(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Max# of tablespaces |
Date: | 2021-01-03 17:27:04 |
Message-ID: | 2691846.1609694824@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thomas Flatley <FLATLEYT(at)outlook(dot)com> writes:
> Hello, I've checked the docs but cant seem to find if there is a max # of tablespaces allowed - I've come across a 9.5 env with 1600 tablespaces - they want to double that - Oracle's max is 64k, I'm not particularly worried about hitting a wall, if there is one , outside of maintenance issues - any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
There's no particular hard limit, though you might start to run into
OID-starvation problems at a billion or so tablespaces.
On the other hand, it's important to realize that a Postgres tablespace
doesn't really *do* anything. It's just a separate subdirectory.
The only functional reason to use a tablespace is if you can place it
on a separate filesystem. There is certainly value in being able to
do that --- but I've never heard of systems having more than a few
dozen filesystems mounted. Hence, the above issue sounds suspiciously
like somebody is expecting Postgres tablespaces to do something they
don't do.
(I suppose if you are working on a system that has limits on the
number of files per directory, or performance problems with large
values of that, then you could use tablespaces as a workaround.
But TBH you'd be better off moving onto a more modern platform.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2021-01-03 17:27:38 | Re: Possible trigger bug? function call argument literalised |
Previous Message | Thiemo Kellner | 2021-01-03 17:08:40 | Possible trigger bug? function call argument literalised |