On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:34, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Correct, we don't set ourselves as large address aware. Hmm. I wonder if we even do that with the 64-bit build. I'm pretty sure I tried with shared_buffers > 4Gb, but now that i see that page, I think I need to re-verify that :-) -- 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
