Thanks Magnus,
So are we correct to rely on
- 8 being slower than 7.x in general and
- 8 on Win32 being a little faster than 8 on Cygwin?
Will the final release of 8 be faster than the beta?
Thanks,
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Magnus Hagander schrieb:
IIRC, previous versions of postgresql ( 8.0) did not correctly sync
disks when running on Cygwin. I'm not 100% sure, can someone confirm?
8.0 does, and I beleive it does both under native win32 and cygwin.
yes, sync is a NOOP on cygwin.
It's been my experience that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So are we correct to rely on
- 8 being slower than 7.x in general and
I think this is a highly unlikely claim ... *especially* if you are
comparing against 7.1. The point about sync() being a no-op is real,
but offhand I think it would only come into
Thanks Magnus,
So are we correct to rely on
- 8 being slower than 7.x in general and
- 8 on Win32 being a little faster than 8 on Cygwin?
Will the final release of 8 be faster than the beta?
I'm pretty certain that previous to 8.0 no win32 based postgesql
properly sync()ed the files.
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm pretty certain that previous to 8.0 no win32 based postgesql
properly sync()ed the files. Win32 does not have sync(), and it is
impossible to emulate it without relying on the application to track
which files to sync. 8.0 does this because it
Hi,
We are experiencing slow performance on 8 Beta 2 Dev3 on Win32 and are
trying to determine why. Any info is appreciated.
We have a Web Server and a DB server both running Win2KServer with all
service packs and critical updates.
An ASP page on the Web Server hits the DB Server with a simple
