Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures

At 2014-06-19 13:33:03 +0200, petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com wrote:
>
> I think quite the opposite, it's better to say we don't support the
> obscure platform than saying that we do and have no active testing or
> proof that it indeed does and somebody finding the hard way that there
> are issues.

Yes, I strongly agree. I've been in the position of having to get things
working on obscure platforms, and was definitely not fond of finding old
rotten code that was kept around "just in case", which nobody actually
cared about (or was familiar with) any more.

Having been on that side of the fence, I don't feel guilty saying that
if someone *really* cares about running the very latest Postgres on an
unsupported platform, they can do some digging around in the archives
and repository and do the necessary legwork.

Let's not pretend to support platforms we have no practical way of
verifying.

-- Abhijit