On 2014-06-24 10:22:08 -0700, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.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?
I'd actually be willing to bet a fair amount of money that it already is broken. Especially in combination with an aggressively optimizing compiler. Then let's do that. > Even if we *had* an Alpha in the buildfarm, I'd have pretty small > confidence in whether our code really worked on it. The buildfarm > tests just don't stress heavily-concurrent behavior enough. Yea. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
