Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing which comes to mind is that it's possible Windows is swapping out
> shared memory making having large shared memory segments dangerous on that
> front.
This is a hazard on most Unixen as well. Windows may just be a bit more
aggressive about it
"Rainer Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>
>>Was working on some documentation today and I realized that I've taken for
>>granted the lore about not using large values for shared_buffers in
>>Windows without ever understanding why. Can someone explain what the
>>underlyin
Greg Smith wrote:
>Was working on some documentation today and I realized that I've taken for
>granted the lore about not using large values for shared_buffers in
>Windows without ever understanding why. Can someone explain what the
>underlying mechanism that causes that limitation is? From p
