It does when you have many sessions. But each individual session can
only use "32 bits worth of memory", and shaared memory counts in all
processes. The memory can be used for *os level cache*, not postgresql
buffercache.
//Magnus
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 16:08, Tom Wilcox <hungrytom@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> The impression I was getting from Magnus Hagander's blog was that a 32-bit
> version of Postgres could make use of >4Gb RAM when running on 64-bit
> Windows due to the way PG passes on the responsibility for caching onto the
> OS.. Is this definitely not the case then?
>
> Here's where Im getting this from:
> http://blog.hagander.net/archives/73-PostgreSQL-vs-64-bit-windows.html
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
> On 2 June 2010 15:04, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>
>> * Tom Wilcox (hungrytom@googlemail.com) wrote:
>> > My question now becomes.. Since it works now, do those memory usage
>> > stats
>> > from resource monitor show that postgres is using all the available
>> > memory
>> > (am I reading it wrong)? Is there a way to allocate 60GB of memory to
>> > the
>> > postgres process so that it can do all sorting, etc directly in RAM? Is
>> > there something I need to tell 64-bit Windows to get it to allocate more
>> > than 4GB of memory to a 32-bit postgres?
>>
>> uhh, a 32-bit program (Postgres, or any other) can't use more than 4G of
>> RAM. That would be the crux of the problem here. Either get a 64bit
>> build of PG for Windows (I'm not sure what the status of that is at the
>> moment..), or get off Windows and on to a 64bit Linux with a 64bit PG.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkwGZQsACgkQrzgMPqB3kijNXgCfSVVSLUqUNs5gCIx0wk44hEmQ
>> 0yIAoJYgfOqYZLjlftJ+0lU3WjUVoKHZ
>> =jdXN
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
>
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
