| From: | "Godfrin, Philippe E" <Philippe(dot)Godfrin(at)nov(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Partitioning with FDW and table size limits |
| Date: | 2020-12-06 23:27:57 |
| Message-ID: | SA0PR15MB393313CE4396B701BB74803382CF0@SA0PR15MB3933.namprd15.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greetings,
In the case where you have a 'local' server, from which you are working with foreign tables. And the foreign tables are partitioned. As each of the partitioned tables is a table in its own right, is it correct to assume the table (relation) size limit of 32 TB applies? For example, provided I had the disk space, with 10 partitioned tables, I could have 320TB of data on 1 or more remote servers.
Am I correct?
Thanks,
phil
Phil Godfrin | Database Administrator
NOV
NOV US | Engineering Data
9720 Beechnut St | Houston, Texas 77036
M 281.825.2311
E Philippe(dot)Godfrin(at)nov(dot)com<mailto:Philippe(dot)Godfrin(at)nov(dot)com>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | 孙冰 | 2020-12-07 07:20:33 | Re: The hidden cost of limit-offset |
| Previous Message | electrotype | 2020-12-06 20:51:51 | JDBC driver - is "getGeneratedKeys()" guaranteed to return the ids in the same order a batch insert was made? |