Re: remove dead ports?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: remove dead ports?
Date: 2012-04-24 20:49:50
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYnSaPJSmSv2LuJWGhNFPPo8S8KCPv8PMPrV5eJ=OmCOA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our
> source tree.  They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or
> probably no one remembers what they even were.  The code just bit rots
> and is in the way of future improvements.

I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough
to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it
if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are
applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct. I'm
suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K,
Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX,
Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or
stuff I've never heard of. I have no problem keeping whatever people
are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's
actually dead for the reasons you state.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-04-24 20:51:34 Re: New sync commit mode remote_write
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-04-24 20:40:28 Re: 9.3: summary of corruption detection / checksums / CRCs discussion