Re: Proposal: Removing 32 bit support starting from PG17++

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2023-05-24 17:44:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So it looks like the only certain problem is PA-RISC - which I personally
> > wouldn't include in "relevant" :), with some evaluation needed for 32bit mips
> > and old arms.
>
> You'll no doubt be glad to hear that I'll be retiring chickadee
> in the very near future.

. o O { I guess chickadee might have been OK anyway, along with e.g.
antique low-end SGI MIPS gear etc of "workstation"/"desktop" form that
any collector is likely to have still running, because they only had
one CPU (unlike their Vogon-spaceship-sized siblings). As long as
they had 64 bit load/store instructions, those couldn't be 'divided'
by an interrupt, so scheduler switches shouldn't be able to tear them,
AFAIK? }