On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 13:08:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> >> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report.
>> >>
On 2015-12-17 13:08:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report.
> >>
> >> Doesn't it explain the exact situation he is in, where
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report.
>>
>> Doesn't it explain the exact situation he is in, where the oldest
>> database is 200 million, but the cluster as a
On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report.
>
> Doesn't it explain the exact situation he is in, where the oldest
> database is 200 million, but the cluster as a whole is 2 billion?
There were no crashes, so no, I don't t
