Re: Maximum table size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From scott.marlowe
Subject Re: Maximum table size
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.33.0309090727110.13569-100000@css120.ihs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Maximum table size  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Is our maximum table size limited by the maximum block number?
> 
> Certainly.
> 
> > Is the 16TB number a hold-over from when we weren't sure block number
> > was unsigned, though now we are pretty sure it is handled as unsigned
> > consistenly?
> 
> It's a holdover.  As to how certain we are that all the
> signed-vs-unsigned bugs are fixed, who have you heard from running a
> greater-than-16Tb table?  And how often have they done CLUSTER, REINDEX,
> or even VACUUM FULL on it?  AFAIK we have zero field experience to
> justify promising that it works.
> 
> We can surely fix any such bugs that get reported, but we haven't got
> any infrastructure that would find or prevent 'em.

any chance OSDL could test it?



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: Stats Collector Error 7.4beta1 and 7.4beta2
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] mcxt.c