| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Palmer <JPalmer(at)linz(dot)govt(dot)nz>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use |
| Date: | 2010-08-25 05:34:57 |
| Message-ID: | 12732.1282714497@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I wrote:
> Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
> wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively available address space
> for a win32 process is, but if there's any inefficiency in the way
> the address space is laid out, those numbers could be enough to be
> trouble.
Actually, a bit of googling turns up this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx
which says that the available userspace address range for a win32
process is only *two* gig (although you can get to three using tricks
that I doubt are in his PG build). Take 800M+500M off the top, and it's
not too hard to credit that it might be tricky to swing a cat in the
remainder; especially given that it sounds like he's running complex
queries that could want to eat a lot of working RAM themselves.
IOW, these numbers are too big for your system.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Palmer | 2010-08-25 05:39:05 | Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-08-25 05:33:53 | Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use |