On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:04:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
BTW, I applied CLUSTER to a 1.6 GB tables a couple of days ago for the
first time and man did it take a long time. The current code is
way too inefficient for rebuilding the table. Maybe another approach
should be used. I don't think clustering a 16 TB table is a serious
proposition.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte.
