On 09/12/2009 03:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This would allow for 220M+ databases. I'm not sure how bad it'd be to
> introduce another field to pg_database which provides the directory (as
> it'd now be distinct from the oid..) or if that might require alot of
> changes. Not sure how easy it'd be to implement something to address
> this problem while we continue to tie the directory name to the oid.
>
Other than bragging rights - what part of this would be a GOOD thing? :-)
My God - I thought 32k databases in the same directory was insane.
220M+???????
Hehehe...
If you can patch PostgreSQL to support such extremes without hurting my
performance - I'll shut up and leave you be. :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke<mark@mielke.cc>