Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 21:39, Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> wrote:
>> I think it's non-obvious if the separate code paths for 32-bit and 64-bit,
>> using `#if SIZEOF_DATUM < 8`, to get *fast* 32-bit support, outweighs
>> the benefits of simpler code.
> Looking at that other thread that you found [1], I think it's entirely
> possible that there are people who care about 32-bit systems, which
> means that we might well get complaints, if we make it slower for
> them. Unfortunately, I don't have any way to test that (I doubt that
> running a 32-bit executable on my x86-64 system is a realistic test).
I think we've already done things that might impact 32-bit systems
negatively (5e1f3b9eb for instance), and not heard a lot of pushback.
I would argue that anyone still running PG on 32-bit must have pretty
minimal performance requirements, so that they're unlikely to care if
numeric_mul gets slightly faster or slower. Obviously a *big*
performance drop might get pushback.
regards, tom lane
