From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "zhaoxin" <zhaox(at)necas(dot)nec(dot)com(dot)cn>, <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: problem about maximum row size ? |
Date: | 2006-04-03 13:45:18 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4011C99CC@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 03 April 2006 14:41
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; zhaoxin; pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] problem about maximum row size ?
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > > [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Bruce Momjian
> > > Sent: 03 April 2006 04:41
> > > To: Tom Lane
> > > Cc: zhaoxin; pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > > Subject: Re: [ODBC] problem about maximum row size ?
> > >
> > > FAQ updated with new number, and mention that increasing
> block size
> > > quadruples it.
> >
> > I've updated the limitations page on the website, though I didn't
> > bother with the blocksize hack on there.
> >
> > Whilst we're on the subject, is 16TB for a table still
> correct given
> > CE partitioning?
>
> Uh, probably not, but do we want to require CE to increase that limit?
It's worth a mention don't you think? Something like:
Maximum table size: 16TB (for a partitioned table, this is the maximum
size of each partition).
Regards, Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas | 2006-04-04 03:44:28 | driver updates in windows |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-03 13:41:14 | Re: problem about maximum row size ? |