Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows
Date: 2018-01-22 14:05:40
Message-ID: 7e9499e0-63fb-52fd-c1c2-715cf285f7df@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/22/2018 04:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'll be quite happy to retire the XP machine running brolga, currawong
> and frogmouth, if that's the consensus. XP is now long out of support.
> OTOH I have personal experience of it running in many potentially
> critical situations, still (hospitals, for example).
>
>
> But do they really run PostgreSQL 11 (or 10..) on that? In my
> experience they usually run an old business application on it only.
> That is a problem in itself of course, but that is not our problem in
> this case :)
>
>  
>
> I can, if people
> want, keep the machine running just building the back branches.
>
>
> That's what I suggest we do. Removing the builds of back branches
> would be the equivalent of de-supporting it on a still supported
> branch, and I don't like that idea. But removing the master branch
> means we desupport in 11, which I think is the right thing to do.

OK, I have left the machine running but these three animals will no
longer build 11, only the back branches.

>
>
>  
>
> I should probably look at setting up a modern 32-bit replacement (say
> Windows 10 Pro-32).
>
>
> Unless we want to desupport 32-bit Windows completely. But unless we
> have an actual reason to do so, I think we shouldn't. So yeah if you
> can get a box like that up and running, that'd be much welcome.

It's probably going to have to wait a couple of months, and at least a
couple of weeks.

It's worth noting that the last Windows Server edition that supported
342bit architectures was WS2008. That's quite old now. I wonder how long
they will continue to support it in the consumer-grade Windows versions.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-01-22 14:46:13 Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-01-22 13:54:14 Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures