>> So the question I would ask goes more like "do you really need 32K >> databases in one installation? Have you considered using schemas >> instead?" Databases are, by design, pretty heavyweight objects. > > I agree, but at the same time, we might: a) update our documentation to > indicate it depends on the filesystem, and b) consider how we might > work around this limit (and if we feel the effort to be worth it).
I don't feel it's worth the effort. I can think of lots of hosted application configurations where one might need 33K tables. Note that PostgreSQL *already* handles this better than Oracle or MySQL do -- I know at least one case where our ability to handle large numbers of tables was a reason for migration from Oracle to PostgreSQL. However, I can think of no legitimate reason to need 33K active databases in a single instance. I think someone has confused databases with schema ... or even with tables. Filemaker developer, maybe? Or maybe it 10 active databases and 32.99K archive ones ... in which case they should be dumped to compressed backup and dropped. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
