From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Carroll <jim(at)carroll(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] Postgres Limitations |
Date: | 1999-02-03 16:42:01 |
Message-ID: | 4818.918060121@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Jim Carroll <jim(at)carroll(dot)com> writes:
>> It is currently unclear as to what will happen when you table reaches 2G
>> of storage on most file systems. I think that >2G table handling got
>> broken somehow.
> I know this is probably a "loaded" question, but do have any idea what
> might be the cause of this limitation ?
Postgres does have logic for coping with tables > 2Gb by splitting them
into multiple Unix files. Peter Mount recently reported that this
feature appears to be broken in the current sources (cf hackers mail
list archive for 25/Jan/99). I don't think anyone has followed up on
the issue yet. (I dunno about the other developers, but I don't have a
few Gb of free space to spare so I can't test it...) You could make a
useful contribution by either determining that the feature does work, or
fixing it if it's busted. Probably wouldn't be a very complex fix, but
I've never looked at that part of the code.
If your total database will exceed the space available on a single
filesystem on your platform, you will have to play some games with
symbolic links in order to spread the table files across multiple
filesystems. I don't know of any gotchas in doing that, but it's
kind of a pain for the DB admin to have to do it by hand.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | blabla | 1999-02-03 19:33:29 | pgaccess question |
Previous Message | Stefan Hornburg | 1999-02-03 15:20:12 | Re: [INTERFACES] ERROR: RestrictionClauseSelectivity: bad value -1.998477 |