On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, 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.
any chance OSDL could test it?