| 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>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove configure --disable-float4-byval and --disable-float8-byval |
| Date: | 2019-11-02 04:41:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn_Qb4T1gM9QqYPFEkUaDAd-_XvR5c_2V-gaRt6bjQmzA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:47 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > This line of argument seems to me to be the moral equivalent of
> > "let's drop 32-bit support altogether". I'm not entirely on board
> > with that. Certainly, a lot of the world is 64-bit these days,
> > but people are still building small systems and they might want
> > a database; preferably one that hasn't been detuned to the extent
> > that it barely manages to run at all on such a platform. Making
> > a whole lot of internal APIs 64-bit would be a pretty big hit for
> > a 32-bit platform --- more instructions, more memory consumed for
> > things like Datum arrays, all in a memory space that's not that big.
>
> I don't agree as well with the line of arguments to just remove 32b
> support.
Clearly you didn't read what I actually wrote, Michael.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-02 05:20:01 | Re: [BUG] Partition creation fails after dropping a column and adding a partial index |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-02 03:14:47 | Re: Remove configure --disable-float4-byval and --disable-float8-byval |