On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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? > > Here's a patch removing alpha/true64/osf/1 support. I think I got most > relevant references, not sure if I missed something. > > Since there seems to be (unanimous?) support for dropping alpha and some > patches coming up that need to deal with platform dependent stuff it > seems sensible to do this first.
I have noticed that most PostgreSQL committers seem for format their commit messages so that paragraphs are separated by a blank line, but you seem not to do that. I find that less readable. I don't personally object to dropping Alpha, but when this was discussed back in October, Stefan did: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52616373.10...@kaltenbrunner.cc But I think he's rather in the minority anyway. Also, if we added a fallback implementation for spinlocks that uses GCC intrinsics, it would probably work again, as much as it does now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers