Hi,
On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Greetings,
* Moser, Glen G (Glen.Moser@charter.com) wrote:
That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
it.
It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large"
databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits.
Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the
4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording:
"There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes.”
The idea is that it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters can run without fixing people on a number. People can draw their own conclusions from the hard limits further down the page.
