Thread: postgresql on 64-bit windows
It looks like there's no 64-bit version of postgresql for windows: http://swik.net/PostgreSQL/Planet+Postgresql/Magnus+Hagander:+PostgreSQL +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? 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? Is there still active work going on? Regards, Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: > 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. It's a lot of work for probably-marginal reward. regards, tom lane
Jeff Davis wrote: > It looks like there's no 64-bit version of postgresql for windows: > http://swik.net/PostgreSQL/Planet+Postgresql/Magnus+Hagander:+PostgreSQL > +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. > 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). 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. //Magnus
> -----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?
Dann Corbit wrote: >> -----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.? All of it, it will just have to be in the form of OS cache. This is the case where it helps to use win64 even if you are only running 32-bit pg. > How large can a table become? Same limit as in 64-bit version AFAIK. >>> 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. It should be, yes. >> 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? Can't speak for others, but I am not currently planning it myself anytime near. But that may change. //Magnus