| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 |
| Date: | 2014-05-30 11:03:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20140530110351.GD25431@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-30 12:00:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 May 2014 08:15, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> But I concur that in practice, if you're dealing with 16TB tables, it's time
> >> to partition.
> >
> > Well, we need to improve our partitioning for that to be viable for all
> > relations. Not having usable foreign and unique keys makes it a pita in
> > some cases.
>
> As discussed, declarative partitioning is on the roadmap for this next
> release, so I would say lets just document that tablesizes above 16TB
> don't report correctly and move on.
I doubt we'll fix all the snags - like foreign keys, unique keys, etc -
that partitioning has in this release... Introducing a blocknumber type
seems easy and mechanical enough.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-05-30 11:23:09 | Re: Odd uuid-ossp behavior on smew and shearwater |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-05-30 11:00:47 | Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 |