James Mansion wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> IIRC, there hasn't been any direct benchmark for it (though I've
>> wanted to do that but had no time), but it's been the olnly real
>> explanation put forward for the behaviour we've seen. And it does make
>> sense given the thread-centric view of t
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, there hasn't been any direct benchmark for it (though I've wanted to do
that but had no time), but it's been the olnly real explanation put forward for
the behaviour we've seen. And it does make sense given the thread-centric view
of the windows mm.
/Magnus
Ho
-- Original Message ---
> From: "Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Sent: 07-11-11, 00:31:59
> Subject: [HACKERS] Win32 shared memory speed
>
> I've seen several comments about shared memory under Windows being
>
I've seen several comments about shared memory under Windows being
"slow", but I haven't had much luck finding info in the archives.
What are the details of this? How was it determined and is there a
straightforward test/benchmark?
---(end of broadcast)---
