| From: | "D'Arcy" "J(dot)M(dot)" Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
| Cc: | peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 |
| Date: | 1999-02-08 00:14:00 |
| Message-ID: | m109eKu-0000bNC@druid.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thus spake Tom Lane
> I'd suggest setting the limit a good deal less than 2Gb to avoid any
> risk of arithmetic overflow. Maybe 200000 8K blocks, instead of 262144.
Why not make it substantially lower by default? Makes it easier to split
a database across spindles. Even better, how about putting extra extents
into different directories like data/base.1, data/base.2, etc? Then as
the database grows you can add drives, move the extents into them and
mount the new drives. The software doesn't even notice the change.
Just a thought.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-02-08 00:14:58 | Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-02-08 00:06:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 |