On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ants Aasma <a...@cybertec.at> wrote: >> FWIW, I think that if we approach coding lock free algorithms >> correctly - i.e. "which memory barriers can we avoid while being >> safe", instead of "which memory barriers we need to add to become >> safe" - then supporting Alpha isn't a huge amount of extra work. > > Alpha is completely irrelevant, so I would not like to expend the > tiniest effort on supporting it. If there is someone using a very much > legacy architecture like this, I doubt that even they will appreciate > the ability to upgrade to the latest major version.
It's mostly irrelevant and I wouldn't shed a tear for Alpha support, but I'd like to point out that it's a whole lot less irrelevant than some of the architectures being discussed here. The latest Alpha machines were sold only 6 years ago and supported up to 512GB of memory with 64 1.3 GHz cores, something that can run a very reasonable database load even today. Regards, Ants Aasma -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
