> On 13 Sep 2023, at 21:12, Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 31.08.23 06:44, Tom Lane wrote: >> I agree. I'm really uncomfortable with claiming support for >> Windows-on-ARM if we don't have a buildfarm member testing it. >> For other platforms that have a track record of multiple >> hardware support, it might not be a stretch ... but Windows was >> so resolutely Intel-only for so long that "it works on ARM" is >> a proposition that I won't trust without hard evidence. There >> are too many bits of that system that might not have gotten the >> word yet, or at least not gotten sufficient testing. >> My vote for this is we don't commit without a buildfarm member. > > I think we can have a multi-tiered approach, where we can commit support but > consider it experimental until we have buildfarm coverage.
If it's experimental it should probably be behind an opt-in flag in autoconf/meson, or be reverted by the time REL_17_STABLE branches unless coverage has materialized by then. -- Daniel Gustafsson
