Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: problem about maximum row size ?

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 (view raw or flat)
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

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: AndreasDate: 2006-04-04 03:44:28
Subject: driver updates in windows
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-04-03 13:41:14
Subject: Re: problem about maximum row size ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group