| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.4 broken on alpha |
| Date: | 2015-09-01 18:56:47 |
| Message-ID: | 16264.1441133807@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:
> The best argument for continuing to support Alpha is probably that
> Linux does. I don't know how they do that.
My sneaking suspicion is that they don't very well. In particular,
unless I misunderstand things fundamentally, the coherency issues
would be invisible without a multi-CPU machine, and there are probably
not that many multi-CPU Alphas still alive. The kernel could well be
full of bugs that don't manifest on single-CPU Alphas.
I also note that nominal support is quite different from being production
grade. Red Hat, for instance, never supported Alpha hardware (at least
not while I was there), and I doubt that any other commercial Linux
support provider has supported it in a long time either. If there were
bugs, how many people would notice or care?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-09-01 18:59:11 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-09-01 18:54:18 | Re: 9.4 broken on alpha |