On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > Greetings, > > * Moser, Glen G (glen.mo...@charter.com) wrote: > > That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not > that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that > 4TB is some sort of upper bound. > > That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up. > > > Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the > sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove > it. > > > 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. > > > Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording: > > "There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that > manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes.” > > The idea is that it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters > can run without fixing people on a number. People can draw their own > conclusions from the hard limits further down the page. > > +1. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
