| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe |
| Date: | 2006-06-22 13:39:54 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E401388AFD@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net]
> Sent: 22 June 2006 14:26
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe
>
>
> Windows children could be handled, I think, but here is also
> standalone
> postgres.
True.
> 3.2 Mb is not insignificant, but I think we can live with it.
That's about 1.4Mb compressed BTW. We can live with it, but it is still
a *lot* of bandwidth when you start talking about hundreds of thousands
of downloads.
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-22 13:45:22 | Re: checking on buildfarm member thrush |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2006-06-22 13:28:00 | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?) |