On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/12/2012 06:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> If a table has a maximum size and rows have size then at some point you >>> will reach a limit on number of rows per table. >> >> >> I think the "unlimited" should be read as "you'll hit some other limit >> first". For example, I trust no one would read that line as implying >> that we can store more data than will fit on the machine's disks. >> In the same way, it's not meant to suggest that the number of rows isn't >> effectively limited by the max table size. > > > I would agree, but the OPs question was: > > " > My question is: > how is it possible to *reach* unlimited rows in table? > " > and then you can have "partitioned" tables, while the system consider them almost independent tables (they are dependent only in the sense that if you read the parent it will read the childs too) but for the user they will look as one single table. so even say see limited by table size is not that true from certain point of view maybe: limited by other constraints (or some other words to say that) -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
