Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John Klos <j...@ziaspace.com> wrote: >> While I wouldn't be surprised if you remove the VAX code because not many >> people are going to be running PostgreSQL, I'd disagree with the assessment >> that this port is broken. It compiles, it initializes databases, it runs, et >> cetera, albeit not with the default postgresql.conf.
> Well, the fact that initdb didn't produce a working configuration and > that make installcheck failed to work properly are bad. But, yeah, > it's not totally broken. >> I'm actually rather impressed at how well PostgreSQL can be adjusted to >> lower memory systems. I deploy a lot of embedded systems with 128 megs (a >> lot for an embedded system, but nothing compared with what everyone else >> assumes), so I'll be checking out PostgreSQL for other uses. > I agree, that's cool. I think we'd be happy to keep the VAX port of PG going as long as we get regular feedback on it, ie closed-loop maintenance not open-loop ;-) Is there anyone in the NetBSD/VAX community who would be willing to host a PG buildfarm member? http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/index.html The requirements for this beyond what it takes to build from source are basically just working git and Perl (ccache helps a lot too), and enough cycles to build the code at least once a day or so. Once you've got the thing set up it seldom needs human attention. If we had a buildfarm member to tell us when we break things, it would be a lot easier to promise continued support. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
