> 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?
That seems right direction for me. I see no reason why 16TB is more reliable number than 32TB, since nobody has ever tried to build 16TB tables. -- Tatsuo Ishii ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
