RE: Is this still accurate?

[Moser, Glen G]

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though this documentation might be out of date.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 & Analytics, NOC
Charter Communications
636.387.6888 (O) | 314.308.5680 (M)

From: Vianello, Daniel A
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 11:16 AM
To: Moser, Glen G ; Coleman, Cynthia A 
; Boyce, Sherwyn 
Subject: RE: Is this still accurate?

It can't be accurate. Feel free to email 
pgsql-d...@postgresql.org to let the 
development group know that they should fix it.

Dan

From: Moser, Glen G
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 10:58 AM
To: Vianello, Daniel A 
mailto:daniel.viane...@charter.com>>; Coleman, 
Cynthia A mailto:cynthia.cole...@charter.com>>; 
Boyce, Sherwyn mailto:sherwyn.bo...@charter.com>>
Subject: Is this still accurate?

Is this still accurate information?

https://www.postgresql.org/about/

[cid:image001.jpg@01D38614.03F28650]

Glen Moser
Director, Reporting & Analytics, NOC
Charter Communications
636.387.6888 (O) | 314.308.5680 (M)

E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for 
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly 
prohibited.

Re: Is this still accurate?

[Scott Marlowe]

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 though this documentation might be out of date.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 numbers specifically do you think are no longer accurate?

Re: Is this still accurate?

[Stephen Frost]

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 part you highlighted was:

"There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that
manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data."

Which is pretty accurate, I know of some myself that are larger than
4TB.  That 4TB number isn't a limit of any kind and the sentence says
"in excess of" meaning that there are databases larger than that.
There's actually some which are quite a bit larger than that, in fact.

We could bump the number up there or remove the sentence, but I don't
think there's anything inaccurate about the statement.

Thanks!

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

RE: Is this still accurate?

[Moser, Glen G]

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, NOC
Charter Communications
636.387.6888 (O) | 314.308.5680 (M)

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfr...@snowman.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 11:55 AM
To: Moser, Glen G 
Cc: pgsql-d...@postgresql.org
Subject: 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 part you highlighted was:

"There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that manage in 
excess of 4 terabytes of data."

Which is pretty accurate, I know of some myself that are larger than 4TB.  That 
4TB number isn't a limit of any kind and the sentence says "in excess of" 
meaning that there are databases larger than that.
There's actually some which are quite a bit larger than that, in fact.

We could bump the number up there or remove the sentence, but I don't think 
there's anything inaccurate about the statement.

Thanks!

Stephen
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for 
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly 
prohibited.

Re: Is this still accurate?

[Stephen Frost]

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 I am just following up.

Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
it.

Thanks!

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Peter Eisentraut]

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
> 
> "docbook" and "dbtopub" missed in  install command.
> 
> make world works after above to package installed.
-- 
Peter Eisentraut  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

[Peter Eisentraut]

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 '' encountered in a, but no template matches.
> Note: Writing man7/CREATE_POLICY.7

It's a stylesheet bug, probably.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: Is this still accurate?

[Steve Atkins]

> 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 of upper bound.
>> 
>> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
> 
> Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
> sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
> it.

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 altogether.

Cheers,
  Steve

Re: Is this still accurate?

[Alvaro Herrera]

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 altogether.

I'd just add a 0 to "40TB" and be done with it.  We have larger
databases but this is a decent enough number.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: Is this still accurate?

[Jonathan S. Katz]

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 that 4TB is some sort of upper bound.That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think thesentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just removeit.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 the4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording:	"There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes.”The idea is that it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters can run without fixing people on a number.  People can draw their own conclusions from the hard limits further down the page.Best,Jonathan

0001-Modify-sentence-on-production-PostgreSQL-instances-o.patch
Description: Binary data

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

[Magnus Hagander]

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
>
> Which version of the documentation is this referring to?


The 0.0 in the URL means it's the devel version of the docs. Theres a bug
that prints it as 0.0 instead of 'devel' it seems.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ 
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ 

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

[Peter Eisentraut]

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: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/0.0/static/docguide-toolsets.html
> 
> 
> Which version of the documentation is this referring to?
> 
> 
> The 0.0 in the URL means it's the devel version of the docs.

In which case it is correct that "docbook" is not listed.

epub isn't really an official format, and it's not mentioned anywhere
else in that chapter, so it would be strange to just list it in the
Debian section.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services