Re: PostgreSQL limitations question

On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:44, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

>
> We could perhaps replace "unlimited" by the result of dividing the max
> table size by the minimum row size. I'm not sure that would be
> particularly helpful though, since most tables are probably a good deal
> wider than the minimum row size, and so the effective limit would be
> quite a bit less.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

How about saying: "No Fixed Limit - see Table Size"

There is a semantic difference between being limited by the file-system (thus internally unlimited) or being limited by an internal constraint (table size). Pointing out the implication that a maximum table size necessarily limits the maximum number of rows stored benefits a very small fraction of the audience but it doesn't cause any harm to the remainder and doesn't cost much to implement.

You could also provide a range:

20 to millions+; based on the max row size of 1.2TB and whatever the minimum size would result in.

David J.