Re: Drop 32-bit support (was "Re: Fix typo 586/686 in atomics/arch-x86.h")

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Drop 32-bit support (was "Re: Fix typo 586/686 in atomics/arch-x86.h")
Date: 2026-03-12 14:02:32
Message-ID: abLHeP_1Jj8V8Itr@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 02:54:58PM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> Right, you might be spot-on: I might have overreacted to this. But probably
> the main question is still valid (and now we have thread! :)). Should we
> maintain builds/testing for 32-bit PostgreSQL in 2026 and beyond?

IMHO we should continue to maintain 32-bit support for now, but I don't
think we should bother micro-optimizing for those builds.

> I remember researching if there any real 32-bit users out there and come up
> with nothing (maybe I'm wrong on this), but maybe that's the right moment to at
> least start deprecating 32-bits?

I'm aware of at least one:

https://postgr.es/m/flat/CO1PR07MB905262E8AC270FAAACED66008D682%40CO1PR07MB9052.namprd07.prod.outlook.com

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2026-03-12 14:04:01 Re: Change initdb default to the builtin collation provider
Previous Message Jakub Wartak 2026-03-12 13:54:58 Re: Drop 32-bit support (was "Re: Fix typo 586/686 in atomics/arch-x86.h")