On 06/25/2014 01:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
I could put together a simh-based machine (i.e., fast) on a vm, if nobody else has stepped up for this. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ/3 New Kensington, PA -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers