On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 17:34, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan
> <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Actually, there is a 64-bit port for windows now. I don't think I
>> misrepresented Magnus - the post suggested that the then-lack of a
>> 64-bit windows port wasn't a pressing issue, and that various
>> technical considerations *partially* justified there not being one at
>> the time (the word size of binaries, and more importantly PG's
>> architecture). It's an assessment that I agreed with.
>
> Also there was (is?) the issue that the pg / shared memory system used
> on windows is apparently quite inefficient at using large amounts of
> memory, so there was no pressing need there for 64 bitness either.
I think there still is, but I don't think anybody has run any proper
benchmarks on different sizes of shared buffers on Win64. That would
be some useful information to have, if anybody's listening.. (all my
64-bit windows boxes are in VMs on "cloud infrastructure" and those
not very suitable for benchmarking..)
Another case was DW-style loads where you actually want to be able to
use gigabytes of memory in a single backend for sort/hash operations
and such. For that, there was no workarond...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/