Hi, > On Jan 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org > <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>> wrote: > Hi, > >> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com >> <mailto:st...@blighty.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net >>> <mailto:sfr...@snowman.net>> wrote: >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> * Moser, Glen G (glen.mo...@charter.com <mailto:glen.mo...@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.” > > 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
