On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> You know, looking at this, I wonder if we shouldn't just remove >>> support for ARMv5 instead of making a blind stab at a fix. >> >> Well, I argued that way for a while ;). We don't even need to really >> desupport it, but just say it's not supported for gcc < 4.4. > > Yeah, I didn't realize at the time that you were making that argument > that the existing code was thought to be broken on its own terms. > Removing probably-working code that we just can't test easily is, in > my mind, quite different from removing probably-broken code for which > we can't test a fix. By the time PostgreSQL 9.5 is released, GCC 4.4 > will be six years old, and telling people on an obscure platform that > few operating system distributions support that they can't use a > brand-new PostgeSQL with a seven-year-old compiler doesn't seem like a > serious problem, especially since the only alternative we can offer is > compiling against completely-untested code.
A few years back I ported the postresql client libraries and a few other pieces of software (in particular subversion) to a lot of obscure platforms (old sparc, hpux, irix, older aix, etc etc). Getting a modern gcc working on those platforms (with the possible exception of aix) is in many cases difficult or impossible. So requiring new gcc is exactly equivalent to desupporting. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
