>> So the question I would ask goes more like "do you really need 32K
>> databases in one installation? Have you considered using schemas
>> instead?" Databases are, by design, pretty heavyweight objects.
>
> I agree, but at the same time, we might: a) update our documentation to
> indicate it depends on the filesystem, and b) consider how we might
> work around this limit (and if we feel the effort to be worth it).
I don't feel it's worth the effort.
I can think of lots of hosted application configurations where one might
need 33K tables. Note that PostgreSQL *already* handles this better
than Oracle or MySQL do -- I know at least one case where our ability to
handle large numbers of tables was a reason for migration from Oracle to
PostgreSQL.
However, I can think of no legitimate reason to need 33K active
databases in a single instance. I think someone has confused databases
with schema ... or even with tables. Filemaker developer, maybe? Or
maybe it 10 active databases and 32.99K archive ones ... in which case
they should be dumped to compressed backup and dropped.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
