On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:04:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
BTW, I applied CLUSTER to a 1.6 GB tables a couple of days ago for the first time and man did it take a long time. The current code is way too inefficient for rebuilding the table. Maybe another approach should be used. I don't think clustering a 16 TB table is a serious proposition. -- Alvaro Herrera (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
