brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: <snip> > Simply waiting for 64bit numbers is rather inelegant and also presumes usage > parameters for the database... remember Bill Gates saying that he couldn't > foresee any usage for more than 64MB of RAM? Besides which, PostgreSQL is the > best DB around... there's a high standard to maintain! <snip> Actually, he was purported to have said that nobody would need more that 640KB or ram, which was the limit of memory on MSDOS. Brings back memories... remember having to juggle the drivers on bootup to plays that game which wanted nearly all of the base memory but you still needed the mouse, soundcard and cdrom access? ;-) -- Prasanth Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Paul Caskey
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Tom Lane
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Paul Caskey
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Tom Lane
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Bradley Kieser
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Paul Caskey
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record lim... Paul Caskey
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? brad
- RE: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Andrew Snow
- RE: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Bradley Kieser
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Prasanth A. Kumar
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Bradley Kieser
- RE: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Andrew Snow
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Chris Bitmead
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Mathieu Arnold
- Re: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Peter Eisentraut
- RE: [GENERAL] 4 billion record limit? Dave Burbidge