Re: The end of 32-bit PostgreSQL support?

On 7/29/24 16:39, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 6:44 PM Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org 
> <mailto:myon@debian.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Re: Bradford Boyle
>      > pgvector has released 0.7.3 and I have update the packaging on
>     Salsa [1] to
>      > update the Debian package. I'd like to request a review and
>     upload, as
>      > cycles permit.
> 
>     Hi Bradford,
> 
>     thanks, uploaded!
> 
>      > There was a build failure for sid/i386 in Salsa's CI pipeline. I
>     suspect
>      > this was caused by the new addition of gcc-14 to sid since the
>      > problematic code was unchanged between 0.7.2 and 0.7.3. Reviewing the
>      > console output from Salsa's pipeline for 0.7.2 [2], shows that gcc-13
>      > was used for building 0.7.2. I was able to resolve the build
>     failure by
>      > conditionally adding -msse2 to PG_CFLAGS when DEB_HOST_ARCH is i386.
> 
>     Having seen how much time you had to spend on resolving this, I wonder
>     it it is finally time to sunset the support for 32-bit architectures
>     in PostgreSQL on Debian. I can't even remember when I've seen a 32-bit
>     cluster in the wild, and there's been zero complaints when I disabled
>     i386 support on apt.postgresql.org <http://apt.postgresql.org> for
>     bullseye. There is a steady
>     stream of extension bugs specific to 32-bit, upstreams have little way
>     and incentive to fix that, and we waste a lot of time for probably no
>     users.
> 
>     Comments? Disable it all (but keep libpq5 for applications)? Continue
>     to build the server since it works, but disable building all
>     extensions?
> 
> Isn't Raspberry Pi still used pretty frequently in 32-bit? Not that they 
> are great big PostgreSQL users, but it's not nothing.  They do their own 
> downstream I believe, but if upstream dropped postgres I'm sure so would 
> they.

Pi OS has had a 64-bit version for two years now, so I think that would 
be the way to go for anyone needing compatibility.

> That said they're also a lot less likely to use the advanced extensions 
> I would guess, so maybe a middle ground could be to provide the base 
> postgresql packages only?

This was one of the options Christoph proposed so I'm certainly OK with it.

Regards,
-David