> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:22 PM
> To: Jeff Davis
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] postgresql on 64-bit windows
>
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> > It looks like there's no 64-bit version of postgresql for windows:
> >
>
http://swik.net/PostgreSQL/Planet+Postgresql/Magnus+Hagander:+PostgreSQ
> L
> > +vs+64-bit+windows
> >
> > but that the 32-bit version of postgresql works just fine on 32-bit
> or
> > 64-bit windows, including Vista. Is this correct?
>
> Yes.
I guess that at some time a 64 bit version will be valuable. If not,
then why bother building 64 bit versions at all? For instance, on a
machine with 256 GB of RAM, how much can you use to cache tables, etc.?
How large can a table become?
> > There's a thread here about possibly supporting 64-bit postgresql on
> > windows:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg00081.php
> >
> > Are there major issues holding that back or is it just a lack of
> demand?
>
> Both.
>
> The 32-bit version covers almost every case on Windows (thanks to our
> multi-process architecture), and works absolutely fine on Win64 (and
> does get some advantages in running on Win64 vs Win32).
Things that perform 64 bit math (e.g. the 64 bit date/time data type)
should get a big speedup when a true 64 bit version is created. I guess
that you can measure this difference on a 64 bit Linux verses a 32 bit
Linux. It would certainly be interesting to see what the Linux
difference in performance is on identical hardware, but with a 64 bit OS
and compiler compared to a 32 bit OS and compiler. I guess that the
Windows speedup will be proportional.
> See some other earlier thread about some major obstacles around
> datatype
> sizes on Win64 for the main obstacles.
>
>
> > Is there still active work going on?
>
> I don't know of anybody actively working on it right now.
Is it planned?
