On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, at 00:31, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Thanks for guidance. Sounds reasonable to me. Noted from 5e1f3b9eb: "While it adds some space on 32-bit machines, we aren't optimizing for that case anymore." In this case, the extra 32-bit numeric_mul code seems to be 89 lines of code, excluding comments. To me, this seems like quite a lot, so I lean on thinking we should omit that code for now. We can always add it later if we get pushback. /Joel
