| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2014-06-24 17:22:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20999.1403630528@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-06-24 13:03:37 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> If a change has the potential to make some architectures give wrong
>> answers only at odd times, that's a different kind of problem. For
>> that reason, actively breaking Alpha is a good thing.
> Not sure what you mean with the 'actively breaking Alpha' statement?
> That we should drop Alpha?
+1. Especially with no buildfarm critter. Would anyone here care
to bet even the price of a burger that Alpha isn't broken already?
Even if we *had* an Alpha in the buildfarm, I'd have pretty small
confidence in whether our code really worked on it. The buildfarm
tests just don't stress heavily-concurrent behavior enough.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-06-24 17:25:41 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-24 17:17:49 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |