Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-06-27 13:12:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't personally object to dropping Alpha, but when this was
>> discussed back in October, Stefan did:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52616373.10004@kaltenbrunner.cc

As an ex-packager I do not believe the argument that it will matter
to packagers if we desupport one of their secondary architectures.
There are many, many packages that have never claimed to work on
oddball architectures at all. Packagers would be better served
by honesty about what we can support.

> Ah, right. I still am in favor of dropping it because I don't it is
> likely to work, but, as a compromise, we could remove only the Tru64
> variant? Openbsd + gcc is much less of a hassle.

>> But I think he's rather in the minority anyway.

> Looks like it.

There would be value in continuing to support Alpha if we had one
in the buildfarm. We don't, and have not had in any recent memory,
and I haven't noticed anyone offering to provide one in future.

The actual situation is that we're shipping a "port" that most
likely doesn't work, and we have no way to fix it. That's of
no benefit to anyone.

regards, tom lane