On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > We could perhaps replace "unlimited" by the result of dividing the max > table size by the minimum row size. I'm not sure that would be > particularly helpful though, since most tables are probably a good deal > wider than the minimum row size, and so the effective limit would be > quite a bit less. > > regards, tom lane >
How about saying: "No Fixed Limit - see Table Size" There is a semantic difference between being limited by the file-system (thus internally unlimited) or being limited by an internal constraint (table size). Pointing out the implication that a maximum table size necessarily limits the maximum number of rows stored benefits a very small fraction of the audience but it doesn't cause any harm to the remainder and doesn't cost much to implement. You could also provide a range: 20 to millions+; based on the max row size of 1.2TB and whatever the minimum size would result in. David J. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
