public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is this still accurate?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:35:57 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABUevEy+m5V9baEqhLeKTmc=EEh1p6H3Vs7O_GM3O8JmWX6S0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4fe11dc1b660433594624b280b8ad832@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<3d7cd4673a80438798ad20b83411e3ca@SC58MEXGP001.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<1646547df04f4555a548ad7815208d5f@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<[email protected]>
<68e5e2554e2240c6a22bd384fa7c9659@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CABUevEy+m5V9baEqhLeKTmc=EEh1p6H3Vs7O_GM3O8JmWX6S0g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
> On Jan 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> * Moser, Glen G ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) 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.
>
> 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.
>
> +1.
Changes pushed.
Jonathan
view thread (11+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is this still accurate?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox