Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe
Date
Msg-id E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E401388AFD@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew@dunslane.net]
> Sent: 22 June 2006 14:26
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe
>
>
> Windows children could be handled, I think, but here is also
> standalone
> postgres.

True.

> 3.2 Mb is not insignificant, but I think we can live with it.

That's about 1.4Mb compressed BTW. We can live with it, but it is still
a *lot* of bandwidth when you start talking about hundreds of thousands
of downloads.

Regards, Dave.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hiroshi Saito"
Date:
Subject: Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?)
Next
From: "Mark Woodward"
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC