On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is our maximum table size limited by the maximum block number? > > Certainly. > > > Is the 16TB number a hold-over from when we weren't sure block number > > was unsigned, though now we are pretty sure it is handled as unsigned > > consistenly? > > It's a holdover. As to how certain we are that all the > signed-vs-unsigned bugs are fixed, who have you heard from running a > greater-than-16Tb table? And how often have they done CLUSTER, REINDEX, > or even VACUUM FULL on it? AFAIK we have zero field experience to > justify promising that it works. > > We can surely fix any such bugs that get reported, but we haven't got > any infrastructure that would find or prevent 'em.
any chance OSDL could test it? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
