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.
I guess the big question is what do we report as the maximum table size? Do we report 32TB and fix any bug that happen over 16TB? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
