Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMKfvP+O-X3W+JCPKnX=S81i8JuRVZYG2dHX=4LVYWUq3Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 12 May 2014 08:15, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

>> But I concur that in practice, if you're dealing with 16TB tables, it's time
>> to partition.
>
> Well, we need to improve our partitioning for that to be viable for all
> relations. Not having usable foreign and unique keys makes it a pita in
> some cases.

As discussed, declarative partitioning is on the roadmap for this next
release, so I would say lets just document that tablesizes above 16TB
don't report correctly and move on.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4