Обсуждение: PostgreSQL for 64 Bit Windows Version

A.Bhattacharya@sungard.com wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> Can anybody help me on downloading 64 bit version of PostgreSQL for
> Windows environment? Do PostgreSQL for windows version supports 64 bit
> version?
>

I don't believe anyone is building a standard package for Win64..
The 32bit version will work just fine on 64bit windows.

On 6/11/2009 3:04 PM, John R Pierce wrote:

> I don't believe anyone is building a standard package for Win64..
> The 32bit version will work just fine on 64bit windows.

... so long as you don't need 2GB (or close to it) of shared memory.

Is anybody using Pg on windows with an installation of that scale yet?

--
Craig Ringer

Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
> On 6/11/2009 3:04 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> I don't believe anyone is building a standard package for Win64..
>> The 32bit version will work just fine on 64bit windows.

> ... so long as you don't need 2GB (or close to it) of shared memory.

> Is anybody using Pg on windows with an installation of that scale yet?

The reports that I've heard say that very large amounts of shared memory
don't seem to offer performance improvements on Windows like you can get
on Unix, so there isn't much reason to put in the (large amount of) work
that would be needed to produce a native Win64 version.

The exact reasons why Windows doesn't like large shmem aren't clear,
at least not to me.

            regards, tom lane

2009/11/6 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
>> On 6/11/2009 3:04 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> I don't believe anyone is building a standard package for Win64..
>>> The 32bit version will work just fine on 64bit windows.
>
>> ... so long as you don't need 2GB (or close to it) of shared memory.
>
>> Is anybody using Pg on windows with an installation of that scale yet?
>
> The reports that I've heard say that very large amounts of shared memory
> don't seem to offer performance improvements on Windows like you can get
> on Unix, so there isn't much reason to put in the (large amount of) work
> that would be needed to produce a native Win64 version.

True. I've definitely seen installations with 16Gb or so RAM, but
they're all running with <1Gb shared_buffers.

The reason they'd be interested in Win64 is really to be able to push
up work_mem and maintenance_work_me.


> The exact reasons why Windows doesn't like large shmem aren't clear,
> at least not to me.

Yeah, and also not why it doesn't *always* dislike it.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/