> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Is our maximum table size limited by the maximum block number?
> >
> > Certainly.
> >
> > > Is the 16TB number a hold-over from when we weren't sure block number
> > > was unsigned, though now we are pretty sure it is handled as unsigned
> > > consistenly?
> >
> > It's a holdover. As to how certain we are that all the
> > signed-vs-unsigned bugs are fixed, who have you heard from running a
> > greater-than-16Tb table? And how often have they done CLUSTER, REINDEX,
> > or even VACUUM FULL on it? AFAIK we have zero field experience to
> > justify promising that it works.
> >
> > We can surely fix any such bugs that get reported, but we haven't got
> > any infrastructure that would find or prevent 'em.
>
> I guess the big question is what do we report as the maximum table size?
> Do we report 32TB and fix any bug that happen over 16TB?
That seems right direction for me. I see no reason why 16TB is more
reliable number than 32TB, since nobody has ever tried to build 16TB
tables.
--
Tatsuo Ishii