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
bemisleading 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.
Glen Moser
Director, Reporting & Analytics, NOC
Charter Communications
636.387.6888 (O) | 314.308.5680 (M)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfrost@snowman.net]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 11:55 AM
To: Moser, Glen G <Glen.Moser@charter.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Is this still accurate?
Greetings,
* Moser, Glen G (Glen.Moser@charter.com) wrote:
> Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at https://www.postgresql.org/about/?
>
> Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below...it seems as though this documentation might be out of
date.
The part you highlighted was:
"There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data."
Which is pretty accurate, I know of some myself that are larger than 4TB. That 4TB number isn't a limit of any kind
andthe sentence says "in excess of" meaning that there are databases larger than that.
There's actually some which are quite a bit larger than that, in fact.
We could bump the number up there or remove the sentence, but I don't think there's anything inaccurate about the
statement.
Thanks!
Stephen
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
confidentialand/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this
messagehas been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this
messageand any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution,copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.