On 07/12/2012 06:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 07/12/2012 12:39 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you were actually asking in
>>> your initial question.
>
>> I understood it to be asking about the conflict between the two
>> statements below:
>
>> Maximum Table Size 32 TB
>> Maximum Rows per Table Unlimited
>
>> If a table has a maximum size and rows have size then at some point you
>> will reach a limit on number of rows per table.
>
> I think the "unlimited" should be read as "you'll hit some other limit
> first". For example, I trust no one would read that line as implying
> that we can store more data than will fit on the machine's disks.
> In the same way, it's not meant to suggest that the number of rows isn't
> effectively limited by the max table size.
I would agree, but the OPs question was:
"
My question is:
how is it possible to *reach* unlimited rows in table?
"
>
> We could perhaps replace "unlimited" by the result of dividing the max
> table size by the minimum row size. I'm not sure that would be
> particularly helpful though, since most tables are probably a good deal
> wider than the minimum row size, and so the effective limit would be
> quite a bit less.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com
