| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we make Bitmapsets a kind of Node? |
| Date: | 2021-01-30 02:37:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=+3pG7ZU2t-rHa_rbyGoU816e8GS=YGEajOimehESkaQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:33 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Those 32-bit modules are still being sold actively by the RPI
> foundation, and used as cheap machines for education purposes, so I
> think that it is still useful for Postgres to have active buildfarm
> members for 32-bit architectures.
But I'm not arguing against that. I'm merely arguing that it is okay
to regress 32-bit platforms (within reason) in order to make them more
like 64-bit platforms. This makes them less prone to subtle
portability bugs that the regression tests won't catch, so even 32-bit
Postgres may well come out ahead, in a certain sense.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-01-30 02:44:28 | Re: Should we make Bitmapsets a kind of Node? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-01-30 02:34:41 | Re: Should we make Bitmapsets a kind of Node? |