| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 |
| Date: | 2014-05-30 11:00:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKfvP+O-X3W+JCPKnX=S81i8JuRVZYG2dHX=4LVYWUq3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 May 2014 08:15, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> But I concur that in practice, if you're dealing with 16TB tables, it's time
>> to partition.
>
> Well, we need to improve our partitioning for that to be viable for all
> relations. Not having usable foreign and unique keys makes it a pita in
> some cases.
As discussed, declarative partitioning is on the roadmap for this next
release, so I would say lets just document that tablesizes above 16TB
don't report correctly and move on.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-30 11:03:51 | Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-30 10:18:45 | Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 |