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.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to