On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > It's probably much riskier to use 32-bit x86 today than
> > it is to use (say) POWER8, or some other contemporary minority
> > platform.
>
> We do still have x86 in the buildfarm, as well as some other
> 32-bit platforms, so I don't agree that it's that much less
> tested than non-mainstream 64-bit platforms. But I do agree
> it's not our main development focus anymore, and shouldn't be.
I was arguing that it's much less tested *in effect*. It seems like
the trend is very much in the direction of less and less ISA level
differentiation.
Consider (just to pick one example) the rationale behind the RISC-V initiative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V#Rationale
In many ways my x86-64 Macbook is closer to the newer M1 Macbook than
it is to some old 32-bit x86 machine. I suspect that this matters. I
am speculating here, of course -- I have to because there is no
guidance to work off of. I don't know anybody that still runs Postgres
(or anything like it) on a 32-bit platform. I think that Michael
Paquier owns a Raspberry Pi zero, but that hardly counts.
--
Peter Geoghegan
