On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 17:34, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan
> 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
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan
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* ju
On 15 December 2010 14:13, Stephen Frost wrote:
> You're misreading poor Magnus. He didn't offer any 'justification'
> regarding why there isn't a Win64 port. He simply was pointing out, for
> those who assume every 'real' tool must be 64bit, that a 32bit PG is
> still a very viable and useful t
* Peter Geoghegan (peter.geoghega...@gmail.com) wrote:
> And yet, that has been used by authoritative people as a partial
> justification for pg lacking a 64-bit version on Windows in the past
> on more than one occasion.
You're misreading poor Magnus. He didn't offer any 'justification'
regardin
On 15 December 2010 10:37, Laurent Wandrebeck wrote:
> Don't even bother with PAE. Let it rot.
> memory consumption due to 64 bits pointers is negligible.
And yet, that has been used by authoritative people as a partial
justification for pg lacking a 64-bit version on Windows in the past
on more
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:30:14 +0100
Marcin Krol wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> I'll use PG on a dedicated machine with more than 4GB of memory.
>
> The problem is: what would be better to use: PAE ("bigmem" kernels) or
> 64-bit kernel?
>
> PAE pro: half
