* Peter Geoghegan (peter.geoghegan86@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > And yet, that has been used by authoritative people as a partial > justification for pg lacking a 64-bit version on Windows in the past > on more than one occasion. You're misreading poor Magnus. He didn't offer any 'justification' regarding why there isn't a Win64 port. He simply was pointing out, for those who assume every 'real' tool must be 64bit, that a 32bit PG is still a very viable and useful tool. The reason there isn't a Win64 port has everything to do with no one being interested enough to work on it, *because* PG runs decently as a 32bit app. If you'd like to work on it, or pay someone to, I'm sure you'd find many in the community who would love to see it happen and might even be able to help. > Perhaps it wasn't stressed too much, but > certainly it was treated as a greater than negligible issue: Compared to the costs of PAE? The memory overhead is *well* worth it. Let's try to keep this in context here. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
