| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum table size |
| Date: | 2003-09-09 06:04:43 |
| Message-ID: | 26098.1063087483@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Is our maximum table size limited by the maximum block number?
Certainly.
> Is the 16TB number a hold-over from when we weren't sure block number
> was unsigned, though now we are pretty sure it is handled as unsigned
> consistenly?
It's a holdover. As to how certain we are that all the
signed-vs-unsigned bugs are fixed, who have you heard from running a
greater-than-16Tb table? And how often have they done CLUSTER, REINDEX,
or even VACUUM FULL on it? AFAIK we have zero field experience to
justify promising that it works.
We can surely fix any such bugs that get reported, but we haven't got
any infrastructure that would find or prevent 'em.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Czuczy Gergely | 2003-09-09 06:06:57 | Re: pgsql in shared lib |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-09 04:45:20 | Maximum table size |