Re: J.2. Tool Sets/Appendix J. Documentation missing package

On 1/5/18 16:38, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > On 1/4/18 09:09, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: htt

Re: J.2. Tool Sets/Appendix J. Documentation missing package

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/4/18 09:09, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/0.0/static/docguide-toolsets.html > > Whi

Re: Is this still accurate?

Hi,On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost 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

Re: Is this still accurate?

Steve Atkins wrote: > 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 al

Re: Is this still accurate?

> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost 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 o

Re: Element sup in namespace '' encountered in a, but no template matches.

On 1/4/18 05:02, Thomas Munro wrote: > Are these messages expected? > > Note: Writing man7/CREATE_OPERATOR_FAMILY.7 > Element sup in namespace '' encountered in a, but no template matches. > Element sup in namespace '' encountered in a, but no template matches. > Element sup in namespace '' encoun

Re: J.2. Tool Sets/Appendix J. Documentation missing package

On 1/4/18 09:09, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/0.0/static/docguide-toolsets.html Which version of the documentation is this referring to? > Description: > > In J.2.3 Debian Packages >

Re: Is this still accurate?

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

RE: Is this still accurate?

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. Glen Moser Director, Reporting & Analytics, N

Re: Is this still accurate?

Greetings, * Moser, Glen G (glen.mo...@charter.com) wrote: > Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at > https://www.postgresql.org/about/? > > Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below...it seems as > though this documentation might be out of date. The p

Re: Is this still accurate?

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Moser, Glen G wrote: > > Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at > https://www.postgresql.org/about/? > > Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below…it seems as > though this documentation might be out of date. What number

RE: Is this still accurate?

Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at https://www.postgresql.org/about/? Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below...it seems as though this documentation might be out of date. [cid:image001.jpg@01D38614.03F28650] Glen Moser Director, Reporting & Anal