Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:34, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
>> wise too.  I'm not sure what the effectively available address space
>> for a win32 process is, but if there's any inefficiency in the way
>> the address space is laid out, those numbers could be enough to be
>> trouble.
>
> Actually, a bit of googling turns up this:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx
>
> which says that the available userspace address range for a win32
> process is only *two* gig (although you can get to three using tricks
> that I doubt are in his PG build).  Take 800M+500M off the top, and it's

Correct, we don't set ourselves as large address aware.

Hmm. I wonder if we even do that with the 64-bit build. I'm pretty
sure I tried with shared_buffers > 4Gb, but now that i see that page,
I think I need to re-verify that :-)


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