In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, brad@kieser.net (Bradley Kieser) transmitted:
> I think as far as PG storage goes you're really on a losing streak
> here because PG clustering really isn't going to support this across
> multiple servers. We're not even close to the mark as far as clustered
> servers and replication management goes, let alone the storate limit
> of 2GB per table. So sadly, PG would have to bow out of this IMHO
> unless someone else nukes me on this!
Are you trying to to do a bad April Fool's joke?
A "2GB limit" is simply nonsense. I work with a number of databases
where tables contain >>2GB of data.
While there are some of the "pointy-clicky" approaches to clustering
and replication that aren't "there" for PostgreSQL, a '2GB limit' is
certainly NOT one of the reasons to avoid PG.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html
"Let me get this straight: A company that dominates the desktop, and
can afford to hire an army of the world's best programmers, markets
what is arguably the world's LEAST reliable operating system?
What's wrong with this picture?" -- <frist@cc.UManitoba.CA>
