Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eXrS7-0003Lz-0e for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 16:36:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eXrS6-0007pp-It for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 16:36:10 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eXrS6-0007pb-A4 for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 16:36:10 +0000 Received: from meldrar.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::31]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXrS3-0001u1-0G for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 16:36:09 +0000 Received: from pool-173-68-135-108.nycmny.fios.verizon.net ([173.68.135.108] helo=ph33r-retina.home) by meldrar.postgresql.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eXrRw-0005Jo-Ho; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 16:36:03 +0000 From: "Jonathan S. Katz" Message-Id: <49CCE1C9-1DD1-4E71-A96F-3924A2571BDB@postgresql.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B8DC9924-18FB-45F4-9F31-5C0209D75C61" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: Is this still accurate? Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:35:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: Cc: Steve Atkins , "pgsql-docs@postgresql.org" To: Magnus Hagander References: <4fe11dc1b660433594624b280b8ad832@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com> <3d7cd4673a80438798ad20b83411e3ca@SC58MEXGP001.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com> <1646547df04f4555a548ad7815208d5f@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com> <20180105175438.GO2416@tamriel.snowman.net> <68e5e2554e2240c6a22bd384fa7c9659@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com> <20180105180019.GP2416@tamriel.snowman.net> <7F963E79-CF4F-4E93-AA46-36E1817332D0@blighty.com> <630D932F-79D5-41C8-9007-06E919BB910A@postgresql.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail=_B8DC9924-18FB-45F4-9F31-5C0209D75C61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, > On Jan 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: > Hi, >=20 >> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins > wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost > wrote: >>>=20 >>> Greetings, >>>=20 >>> * Moser, Glen G (Glen.Moser@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. >>>>=20 >>>> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following = up. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle = "large" >> databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical = limits. >>=20 >> Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around = the >> 4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether. >=20 > Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording: >=20 > "There are active PostgreSQL instances in production = environments that manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters = managing petabytes.=E2=80=9D >=20 > 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. >=20 > +1. Changes pushed. Jonathan --Apple-Mail=_B8DC9924-18FB-45F4-9F31-5C0209D75C61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi,

On Jan 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, = Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:



On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, = Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote:
Hi,

On Jan 5, = 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> wrote:


On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

Greetings,

* Moser, Glen G (Glen.Moser@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.

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.=E2=80=9D

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

= --Apple-Mail=_B8DC9924-18FB-45F4-9F31-5C0209D75C61--