2009/11/6 Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Craig Ringer <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. True. I've definitely seen installations with 16Gb or so RAM, but they're all running with <1Gb shared_buffers. The reason they'd be interested in Win64 is really to be able to push up work_mem and maintenance_work_me. > The exact reasons why Windows doesn't like large shmem aren't clear, > at least not to me. Yeah, and also not why it doesn't *always* dislike it. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
