On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 512M is still REALLY high for a 32 bit postgresql. Have you tried >> something in the 16Meg range? > > 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. I believe it's limited to 3Gigs. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
