On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> 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
>
How about saying: "No Fixed Limit - see Table Size"
There is a semantic difference between being limited by the file-system (thus internally unlimited) or being limited by
aninternal constraint (table size). Pointing out the implication that a maximum table size necessarily limits the
maximumnumber of rows stored benefits a very small fraction of the audience but it doesn't cause any harm to the
remainderand doesn't cost much to implement.
You could also provide a range:
20 to millions+; based on the max row size of 1.2TB and whatever the minimum size would result in.
David J.
