On 09/12/2009 03:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
This would allow for 220M+ databases. I'm not sure how bad it'd be to
introduce another field to pg_database which provides the directory (as
it'd now be distinct from the oid..) or if that might require alot of
changes. Not sure how easy it'd be to implement something to address
this problem while we continue to tie the directory name to the oid.
Other than bragging rights - what part of this would be a GOOD thing? :-)
My God - I thought 32k databases in the same directory was insane.
220M+???????
Hehehe...
If you can patch PostgreSQL to support such extremes without hurting my
performance - I'll shut up and leave you be. :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke<m...@mielke.cc>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
