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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Palmer <JPalmer(at)linz(dot)govt(dot)nz>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use
Date: 2010-08-25 05:34:57
Message-ID: 12732.1282714497@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

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
not too hard to credit that it might be tricky to swing a cat in the
remainder; especially given that it sounds like he's running complex
queries that could want to eat a lot of working RAM themselves.

IOW, these numbers are too big for your system.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Palmer 2010-08-25 05:39:05 Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2010-08-25 05:33:53 Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use