Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from )
id 1eXYU8-0000or-6U
for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:21:00 +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 1eXYU7-0005th-HZ
for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:20:59 +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 1eXYTP-0004Bq-E3
for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:20:15 +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 1eXYTM-0001Vp-Ak
for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:20:13 +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 1eXYTG-0000Ln-Oj; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:20:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Is this still accurate?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html";
boundary="Apple-Mail=_C1457EF3-D26E-4E06-BFB7-C6F5CD635A88"
X-Apple-Auto-Saved: 1
X-Apple-Mail-Remote-Attachments: YES
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
X-Apple-Base-Url: x-msg://23/
In-Reply-To: <7F963E79-CF4F-4E93-AA46-36E1817332D0@blighty.com>
X-Apple-Windows-Friendly: 1
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:09:21 -0500
Cc: "pgsql-docs@postgresql.org"
X-Apple-Mail-Signature: SKIP_SIGNATURE
Message-Id: <630D932F-79D5-41C8-9007-06E919BB910A@postgresql.org>
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>
X-Uniform-Type-Identifier: com.apple.mail-draft
To: Steve Atkins
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
List-Id:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe:
List-Post:
List-Owner:
List-Archive:
Precedence: bulk
--Apple-Mail=_C1457EF3-D26E-4E06-BFB7-C6F5CD635A88
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
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.