Re: remove dead ports?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: remove dead ports?
Date: 2012-04-25 04:06:59
Message-ID: 22678.1335326819@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough
> to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it
> if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are
> applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct. I'm
> suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K,
> Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX,
> Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or
> stuff I've never heard of. I have no problem keeping whatever people
> are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's
> actually dead for the reasons you state.

The Renesas implementations were added pretty darn recently, so I think
there are users for those. The others you mention seem dead to me.
On the other hand, exactly how much is it costing us to leave those
sections of s_lock.h in there? It's not like we have any plans to
redefine the spinlock interfaces.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qi Huang 2012-04-25 04:35:28 Re: Welcome 2012 GSOC students
Previous Message Noah Misch 2012-04-25 03:55:15 Temporary tables under hot standby