X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618D49FA4A8 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:44:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02772-09 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:44:05 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869BA9FA10A for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:44:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5D2i1YM015369; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:44:02 -0400 (EDT) To: "Alex Turner" cc: "Steve Atkins" , "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? In-reply-to: <33c6269f0606121926p15107d2fq9d395460269e2e53@mail.gmail.com> References: <1150151282.14661.42.camel@tigger> <54CA6A16-AB42-440D-B5DB-BC43AE283ED8@blighty.com> <448E11B1.20309@commandprompt.com> <1BAED8DB-01CE-4D10-A509-91FB4DF1F04D@blighty.com> <33c6269f0606121926p15107d2fq9d395460269e2e53@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Alex Turner" message dated "Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:26:05 -0400" Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:44:01 -0400 Message-ID: <15368.1150166641@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/156 X-Sequence-Number: 19513 "Alex Turner" writes: > Anyone who has tried x86-64 linux knows what a royal pain in the ass it > is. They didn't do anything sensible, like just make the whole OS 64 bit, > no, they had to split it up, and put 64-bit libs in a new directory /lib64. Actually, there's nothing wrong with that. As this thread already made clear, there are good reasons why you might want to run 32-bit apps as well as 64-bit apps on your 64-bit hardware. So the 32-bit libraries live in /usr/lib and the 64-bit ones in /usr/lib64. If you ask me, the really serious mistake in this design is they didn't decree separate bin directories /usr/bin and /usr/bin64 too. This makes it impossible to install 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same package at the same time, something that curiously enough people are now demanding support for. (Personally, if I'd designed it, the libraries would actually live in /usr/lib32 and /usr/lib64, and /usr/lib would be a symlink to whichever you needed it to be at the moment. Likewise for /usr/bin.) regards, tom lane