Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures

On 06/27/2014 08:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> 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
>
> As an ex-packager I do not believe the argument that it will matter
> to packagers if we desupport one of their secondary architectures.
> There are many, many packages that have never claimed to work on
> oddball architectures at all. Packagers would be better served
> by honesty about what we can support.

yeah I guess so - I was mostly pointing out that alpha looked like to be
a way more "active" platform than most of what was discussed in that
thread. I personally dont think that continuing to support alpha will
buy us anything...

>
>> 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.
>
>>> But I think he's rather in the minority anyway.
>
>> Looks like it.
>
> There would be value in continuing to support Alpha if we had one
> in the buildfarm. We don't, and have not had in any recent memory,
> and I haven't noticed anyone offering to provide one in future.
>
> The actual situation is that we're shipping a "port" that most
> likely doesn't work, and we have no way to fix it. That's of
> no benefit to anyone.

yeah I dont have access to any alpha hardware to provide a buildfarm box
so I cant "help" there :(

Stefan