From: | brad <brad(at)kieser(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Mathieu Arnold <arn_mat(at)club-internet(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Postgres Users <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
Date: | 2000-07-27 09:23:20 |
Message-ID: | 397FFF88.30254BC6@kieser.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-novice |
Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >
>
> > Any complex scheme to solve this seems like a waste of time. In a couple
> > of years when you are likely to be running out, you'll probably be
> > upgrading your computer to a 64bit one with a newer version of postgres,
> > and then the problem will disappear.
>
> that's the kind of thing people said about y2k, isn't it ?
>
I don't want to start a war but I must agree here... I recoil when the
argument is put forward for a "you will never use that up" approach.
The best that I can offer is: Oh yeah? Seen some of the Beowulf clusters
around recently?
>
> --
> Mathieu Arnold
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bradley Kieser | 2000-07-27 09:50:50 | RE: 4 billion record limit? |
Previous Message | Mathieu Arnold | 2000-07-27 08:16:09 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bradley Kieser | 2000-07-27 09:50:50 | RE: 4 billion record limit? |
Previous Message | Mathieu Arnold | 2000-07-27 08:16:09 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |