Re: Is this still accurate?

Hi,

> On Jan 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org <mailto:jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com <mailto:steve(at)blighty(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net <mailto:sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> * Moser, Glen G (Glen(dot)Moser(at)charter(dot)com <mailto:Glen(dot)Moser(at)charter(dot)com>) wrote:
>>>> That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
>>>>
>>>> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
>>>
>>> Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
>>> sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
>>> it.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording:
>
> "There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes.”
>
> The idea is that it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters can run without fixing people on a number. People can draw their own conclusions from the hard limits further down the page.
>
> +1.

Changes pushed.

Jonathan