| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL for 64 Bit Windows Version |
| Date: | 2009-11-06 14:27:52 |
| Message-ID: | 7441.1257517672@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> On 6/11/2009 3:04 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> I don't believe anyone is building a standard package for Win64..
>> The 32bit version will work just fine on 64bit windows.
> ... so long as you don't need 2GB (or close to it) of shared memory.
> Is anybody using Pg on windows with an installation of that scale yet?
The reports that I've heard say that very large amounts of shared memory
don't seem to offer performance improvements on Windows like you can get
on Unix, so there isn't much reason to put in the (large amount of) work
that would be needed to produce a native Win64 version.
The exact reasons why Windows doesn't like large shmem aren't clear,
at least not to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-11-06 15:26:27 | Re: Problem with database performance, Debian 4gb ram ? |
| Previous Message | Ries van Twisk | 2009-11-06 14:12:11 | Re: xml import/export tools and performance |