| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Date: | 2012-04-25 00:57:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HOFy7UvnFUnzx-kfdQd6YrFhTzQQ9Wgr1W-VO9wWZRQ-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm
> suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K,
> Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX,
> Nextstep, and Sun3
Were there ever multiprocessor Nextstep or Sun3 machines anyways?
Wouldn't someone on these OSes want spinlocks to immediately sleep
anyways?
I did experiment a while back with getting a vax emulator going to
build postgres on it but even then I was running NetBSD.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-04-25 01:31:39 | Re: 9.3: summary of corruption detection / checksums / CRCs discussion |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2012-04-25 00:52:22 | Re: 9.3: summary of corruption detection / checksums / CRCs discussion |