| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures |
| Date: | 2014-06-27 19:02:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20140627190223.GA1395552@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 07:51:32PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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
>
> 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.
Retaining Alpha support means placing data dependency barriers (Linux kernel
term) where the Alpha memory model requires them. I doubt enough users will
stress Alpha builds for us to distinguish a missing barrier from hardware
flakiness, so we'd never find out whether we did it right. That's why I favor
removing Alpha-specific code completely, and it is an OS-independent and
compiler-independent motive.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2014-06-27 20:00:30 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2014-06-27 18:56:28 | Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures |