2009/11/6 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> 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/
