Re: Is this still accurate?

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Moser, Glen G (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.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>