On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 17:34, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan > <peter.geoghegan86@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Actually, there is a 64-bit port for windows now. I don't think I >> misrepresented Magnus - the post suggested that the then-lack of a >> 64-bit windows port wasn't a pressing issue, and that various >> technical considerations *partially* justified there not being one at >> the time (the word size of binaries, and more importantly PG's >> architecture). It's an assessment that I agreed with. > > Also there was (is?) the issue that the pg / shared memory system used > on windows is apparently quite inefficient at using large amounts of > memory, so there was no pressing need there for 64 bitness either. I think there still is, but I don't think anybody has run any proper benchmarks on different sizes of shared buffers on Win64. That would be some useful information to have, if anybody's listening.. (all my 64-bit windows boxes are in VMs on "cloud infrastructure" and those not very suitable for benchmarking..) Another case was DW-style loads where you actually want to be able to use gigabytes of memory in a single backend for sort/hash operations and such. For that, there was no workarond... -- 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
