Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-24 10:22:08 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Here's a patch removing alpha/true64/osf/1 support. I think I got most
> relevant references, not sure if I missed something.
>
> Since there seems to be (unanimous?) support for dropping alpha and some
> patches coming up that need to deal with platform dependent stuff it
> seems sensible to do this first.

I have noticed that most PostgreSQL committers seem for format their
commit messages so that paragraphs are separated by a blank line, but
you seem not to do that. I find that less readable.

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

But I think he's rather in the minority anyway. Also, if we added a
fallback implementation for spinlocks that uses GCC intrinsics, it
would probably work again, as much as it does now.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company