Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f02MMc706823 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:22:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org) Received: from forte.mh-freiburg.de (mail.mh-freiburg.de [193.197.131.2]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBVC3mL72903 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 07:03:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rm@mh-freiburg.de) Received: (from rm@localhost) by forte.mh-freiburg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) id NAA08215; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:31:35 +0100 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:31:34 +0100 From: Ralf Mattes To: Tom Samplonius Cc: Michael Graff , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Rather incorrect text in admin guide Message-ID: <20001231133134.A8207@forte.mh-freiburg.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tom@sdf.com on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 07:05:41PM -0800 X-Archive-Number: 200101/12 X-Sequence-Number: 146 On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 07:05:41PM -0800, Tom Samplonius wrote: > Also NFSv2 is limited to 2GB, even if the client and server have no > issues. It is a protocol thing that is fixed in NFSv3. I doubt that > anyone is putting their postgres databases on a NFS server, but you never > know. It would be a bad idea to put the database on NFS but the paragraph talks about possible problems during pg_dump and it doesn't seem too unreasonable to dump a database to an NFS-mounted area. Ralf Mattes P.S: Happy new year :-)