Steve Atkins wrote: > It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large" > databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits. > > Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the > 4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
I'd just add a 0 to "40TB" and be done with it. We have larger databases but this is a decent enough number. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
