Re: Add support for AT LOCAL

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, cary huang <hcary328(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add support for AT LOCAL
Date: 2023-10-21 05:18:33
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2023-10-19 10:38:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 7:33 PM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > I feel the gravity and longevity of xlc bugs has been out of proportion with
> > the compiler's contribution to PostgreSQL. I would find it reasonable to
> > revoke xlc support in v17+, leaving AIX gcc support in place.
> +1 for this proposal. I just think this is getting silly. We're saying
> that we only have access to 1 or 2 AIX machines, and most of us have
> access to none, and the compiler has serious code generation bugs that
> are present in both a release 11 years old and also a release current
> release, meaning they went unfixed for 10 years, and we can't report
> bugs or get them fixed when we find them, and the use of this
> particular compiler in the buildfarm isn't finding any issues that
> matter anywhere else.


> To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that even AIX gcc support is
> delivering enough value per unit work to justify keeping it around.
> But the xlc situation is worse.

Agreed with both. If it were just a platform that didn't need special casing
in a bunch of places, it'd be one thing, but it's linkage model is so odd that
it makes no sense to keep AIX support around. But I'll take what I can get...


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-10-21 05:27:58 Re: Add support for AT LOCAL
Previous Message Noah Misch 2023-10-21 03:54:57 Re: post-recovery amcheck expectations