Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 02:29:08PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > I think we need an in-between status of > might-work-will-remove-if-it-doesnt. The key is not whether to remove > it, the key is whether the lack of support for certain features in an > old OS is sufficient to prevent forward progress of PostgreSQL. > > IMHO, IRIX no longer rates extra effort, should it be required. +1 for that. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On 13 September 2012 14:18, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:00:51AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> SGI support for IRIX ends in Dec 2013, following on from >> discontinuation of hardware in 2006/7 >> http://www.sgi.com/services/support/irix_mips_support.html >> >> Which means 9.3 will not have an IRIX platform to run on for more than >> a few months after release, so I think we should remove IRIX support >> now. > >> Any objections to removing irix support now? > > While I wouldn't personally weep for its loss, I think it's premature. The > others Peter Eisentraut removed have been in the ground about a decade longer > than IRIX. In the absence of a specific reason to believe PostgreSQL no > longer works on the platform or a notable maintenance benefit from removing > its platform-specific source code, let's keep it awhile. I agree. I think we need an in-between status of might-work-will-remove-if-it-doesnt. The key is not whether to remove it, the key is whether the lack of support for certain features in an old OS is sufficient to prevent forward progress of PostgreSQL. IMHO, IRIX no longer rates extra effort, should it be required. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:00:51AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > SGI support for IRIX ends in Dec 2013, following on from > discontinuation of hardware in 2006/7 > http://www.sgi.com/services/support/irix_mips_support.html > > Which means 9.3 will not have an IRIX platform to run on for more than > a few months after release, so I think we should remove IRIX support > now. > Any objections to removing irix support now? While I wouldn't personally weep for its loss, I think it's premature. The others Peter Eisentraut removed have been in the ground about a decade longer than IRIX. In the absence of a specific reason to believe PostgreSQL no longer works on the platform or a notable maintenance benefit from removing its platform-specific source code, let's keep it awhile. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On 6 May 2012 15:23, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Geoghegan writes: >> On 6 May 2012 01:06, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more. >>> It won't hurt anything much to leave these around for another few >>> years. > >> I think it's better to force users of platforms like IRIX and BSD/OS, >> platforms which are obsolete according to any practical definition, to >> use earlier branches that presumably are known to have had a certain >> amount of testing. > > If there are any such users, we should be trying to get them to provide > a buildfarm member, so that we can honestly say that the port works. > I see removal of the port files as a way to send an unmistakable signal > that we're not going to continue to guess about that. We can always put > back a given port if volunteers emerge to support it. About 3 years ago I tried to get a loan machine running IRIX, given that I used to have an SGI O2 for data visualisation work about a decade ago. I couldn't get through to anybody or even raise interest. Agree with comments upthread, if you run IRIX you can use earlier versions of Postgres that support it. SGI support for IRIX ends in Dec 2013, following on from discontinuation of hardware in 2006/7 http://www.sgi.com/services/support/irix_mips_support.html Which means 9.3 will not have an IRIX platform to run on for more than a few months after release, so I think we should remove IRIX support now. SGI themselves ship Red Hat or SUSE now anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIX Any objections to removing irix support now? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
Peter Geoghegan writes: > On 6 May 2012 01:06, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more. >> It won't hurt anything much to leave these around for another few >> years. > I think it's better to force users of platforms like IRIX and BSD/OS, > platforms which are obsolete according to any practical definition, to > use earlier branches that presumably are known to have had a certain > amount of testing. If there are any such users, we should be trying to get them to provide a buildfarm member, so that we can honestly say that the port works. I see removal of the port files as a way to send an unmistakable signal that we're not going to continue to guess about that. We can always put back a given port if volunteers emerge to support it. 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On 6 May 2012 01:06, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Well, absent user feedback, we could use our own 5-year rule and keep >> sco and unixware, and remove irix (2006). > > I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more. > It won't hurt anything much to leave these around for another few > years. I think it's better to force users of platforms like IRIX and BSD/OS, platforms which are obsolete according to any practical definition, to use earlier branches that presumably are known to have had a certain amount of testing. Supporting these platforms while "flying blind" seems to rather devalue what it means for a platform to be supported by Postgres. Presumably these users don't plan to stay on their platform of choice forever, and don't have terribly demanding needs, so I don't really see that we're doing them any kind of disservice. Continuing to support these platforms is actually the less conservative option. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Well, absent user feedback, we could use our own 5-year rule and keep > sco and unixware, and remove irix (2006). I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more. It won't hurt anything much to leave these around for another few years. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 12:08:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the "sco" and > >> "unixware" ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running > >> SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template. > > > Unixware was based on Unix System Labs System V, Release 4, while SCO > > was based on a 286 port of SVr2, or something like that. > > Oh, so the "sco" port actually refers to OpenServer? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer > > That page makes it sound like it's more or less as current as Unixware, > since both had their last updates in 2008/2009 timeframe (and both > are presumably never going to see another one, with SCO the company > being dead in all but name). > > The difference from our perspective is that we have a buildfarm member > running Unixware, whereas it's anybody's guess whether the "sco" port > still works or not. Well, absent user feedback, we could use our own 5-year rule and keep sco and unixware, and remove irix (2006). -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 12:08:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the "sco" and > >> "unixware" ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running > >> SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template. > > > Unixware was based on Unix System Labs System V, Release 4, while SCO > > was based on a 286 port of SVr2, or something like that. > > Oh, so the "sco" port actually refers to OpenServer? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer > > That page makes it sound like it's more or less as current as Unixware, > since both had their last updates in 2008/2009 timeframe (and both > are presumably never going to see another one, with SCO the company > being dead in all but name). > > The difference from our perspective is that we have a buildfarm member > running Unixware, whereas it's anybody's guess whether the "sco" port > still works or not. Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. SCO is both an OS and a company. The 'sco' references OpenServer. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On 5 May 2012 09:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Based on these emerging criteria, should we also remove the other > platforms on my original "marginal" list? > > irix Well, there hasn't been an IRIX release since 2006, and silicon graphics is defunct. The SGI brand lives on, though I think that that organisation isn't in any meaningful sense a successor - certainly, they don't produce the IRIX workstations (or any other) that were the main business of SGI for so long. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the "sco" and >> "unixware" ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running >> SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template. > Unixware was based on Unix System Labs System V, Release 4, while SCO > was based on a 286 port of SVr2, or something like that. Oh, so the "sco" port actually refers to OpenServer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer That page makes it sound like it's more or less as current as Unixware, since both had their last updates in 2008/2009 timeframe (and both are presumably never going to see another one, with SCO the company being dead in all but name). The difference from our perspective is that we have a buildfarm member running Unixware, whereas it's anybody's guess whether the "sco" port still works or not. 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a > >> buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old > >> uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI > >> port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily, > >> but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it. > > > Based on these emerging criteria, should we also remove the other > > platforms on my original "marginal" list? > > > irix > > osf > > sco > > Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the "sco" and > "unixware" ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running > SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template. Unixware was based on Unix System Labs System V, Release 4, while SCO was based on a 286 port of SVr2, or something like that. Both were produced by SCO, though Novell was also involved with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnixWare > > irix and osf support was already dropped in Python 3.0, so probably > > their time is up. > > Yeah, been a long time since I heard of either. Yep. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a >> buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old >> uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI >> port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily, >> but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it. > Based on these emerging criteria, should we also remove the other > platforms on my original "marginal" list? > irix > osf > sco Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the "sco" and "unixware" ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template. > irix and osf support was already dropped in Python 3.0, so probably > their time is up. Yeah, been a long time since I heard of either. 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:59:54AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not > > actual testing, I assume. > > There were either essential pieces missing (e.g., no shared library > support, or no Makefile.port), or we had received reports in the past > the platform doesn't work and won't be fixed anymore by the original > supporter. > > > Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a > > buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old > > uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI > > port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily, > > but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it. > > Based on these emerging criteria, should we also remove the other > platforms on my original "marginal" list? > > irix > osf > sco > > irix and osf support was already dropped in Python 3.0, so probably > their time is up. Good question. SCO seems risky, but irix and osf are very possible. I would ask about all three on general. You probably have to give it more time because we don't know as much about the usage as we did about bsdi. We have to wrap this up before beta so it will be tight. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not > actual testing, I assume. There were either essential pieces missing (e.g., no shared library support, or no Makefile.port), or we had received reports in the past the platform doesn't work and won't be fixed anymore by the original supporter. > Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a > buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old > uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI > port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily, > but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it. Based on these emerging criteria, should we also remove the other platforms on my original "marginal" list? irix osf sco irix and osf support was already dropped in Python 3.0, so probably their time is up. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:16 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Not sure where you got 24 hours: > > Tues http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00061.php > Wed http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-05/msg00060.php > Thur http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2012-05/msg00023.php The time between the post to -general and the commit. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:25:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about > >> the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known > >> to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of > >> discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24 > >> hours notice. > > What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not > actual testing, I assume. > > > Basically, we have beta next week so I wanted to do it before then, and > > I have my head down doing the release notes, so I wanted to do it before > > I started that too. I kind of knew the bsdi answer before I even asked. > > > If you are objecting to me short-circuiting this, I will revert the > > patch. If we can't short-circuiting thinks when we already know the > > answer, everyone's work will take more time. > > Leave it as-is. I agree with the upthread comment that we can revert > the patch during beta (or even later than that), if anyone complains. > Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a > buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old > uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI > port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily, > but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it. Yes, it was an odd port that probably would have been removed five years ago if I had not been using it, which I am no longer. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about >> the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known >> to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of >> discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24 >> hours notice. What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not actual testing, I assume. > Basically, we have beta next week so I wanted to do it before then, and > I have my head down doing the release notes, so I wanted to do it before > I started that too. I kind of knew the bsdi answer before I even asked. > If you are objecting to me short-circuiting this, I will revert the > patch. If we can't short-circuiting thinks when we already know the > answer, everyone's work will take more time. Leave it as-is. I agree with the upthread comment that we can revert the patch during beta (or even later than that), if anyone complains. Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily, but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it. 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-05-03 at 17:39 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On 3 May 2012 17:21, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user > > > in the past 5-7 years. > > > > I'm inclined to agree with Bruce. While it's not reasonable to assume > > that the lack of a BSD/OS user complaining on -general indicates that > > there are none, it's also not reasonable for them to expect us to > > support their operating system for 8 years after the original > > proprietary vendor. Better to not support BSD/OS than to supply a port > > that no one really has any confidence in. It's not as if we've ceased > > support in release branches. > > I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about > the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known > to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of > discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24 > hours notice. Not sure where you got 24 hours: Tues http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00061.php Wed http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-05/msg00060.php Thur http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2012-05/msg00023.php Basically, we have beta next week so I wanted to do it before then, and I have my head down doing the release notes, so I wanted to do it before I started that too. I kind of knew the bsdi answer before I even asked. If you are objecting to me short-circuiting this, I will revert the patch. If we can't short-circuiting thinks when we already know the answer, everyone's work will take more time. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-05-03 at 17:39 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On 3 May 2012 17:21, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user >> > in the past 5-7 years. >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Bruce. While it's not reasonable to assume >> that the lack of a BSD/OS user complaining on -general indicates that >> there are none, it's also not reasonable for them to expect us to >> support their operating system for 8 years after the original >> proprietary vendor. Better to not support BSD/OS than to supply a port >> that no one really has any confidence in. It's not as if we've ceased >> support in release branches. > > I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about > the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known > to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of > discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24 > hours notice. There is enough time until 9.2-final for a BSD/OS user raise complaints. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On tor, 2012-05-03 at 17:39 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 3 May 2012 17:21, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user > > in the past 5-7 years. > > I'm inclined to agree with Bruce. While it's not reasonable to assume > that the lack of a BSD/OS user complaining on -general indicates that > there are none, it's also not reasonable for them to expect us to > support their operating system for 8 years after the original > proprietary vendor. Better to not support BSD/OS than to supply a port > that no one really has any confidence in. It's not as if we've ceased > support in release branches. I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24 hours notice. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On 3 May 2012 17:21, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user > in the past 5-7 years. I'm inclined to agree with Bruce. While it's not reasonable to assume that the lack of a BSD/OS user complaining on -general indicates that there are none, it's also not reasonable for them to expect us to support their operating system for 8 years after the original proprietary vendor. Better to not support BSD/OS than to supply a port that no one really has any confidence in. It's not as if we've ceased support in release branches. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:11:47PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-05-03 at 10:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Having received no replies on "general" from bsdi users considering > > upgrading to 9.2, I have removed the port. > > I think that was quite premature. There is no requirement that bsdi > users need to read pgsql-general, especially if you give them only a 24 > hour notice. The bsdi port still appears to work, and it doesn't cost > us anything to maintain it, so I think we should keep it, or at least > have a longer grace period. I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user in the past 5-7 years. The last official release was in 2003/2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD/OS I rather think I kept it a viable port on my own, and can't anymore. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On tor, 2012-05-03 at 10:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Having received no replies on "general" from bsdi users considering > upgrading to 9.2, I have removed the port. I think that was quite premature. There is no requirement that bsdi users need to read pgsql-general, especially if you give them only a 24 hour notice. The bsdi port still appears to work, and it doesn't cost us anything to maintain it, so I think we should keep it, or at least have a longer grace period. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:39:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:29:39PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our > > source tree. They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or > > probably no one remembers what they even were. The code just bit rots > > and is in the way of future improvements. > > > > * Dead/remove: > > > > dgux > > nextstep > > sunos4 > > svr4 > > ultrix4 > > univel > > > > * Dubious, but keep for now: > > > > bsdi > > I am no longer on bsdi and I bet there are no more existing users > either. It can be removed, I think. Having received no replies on "general" from bsdi users considering upgrading to 9.2, I have removed the port. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:29:39PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our > source tree. They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or > probably no one remembers what they even were. The code just bit rots > and is in the way of future improvements. > > * Dead/remove: > > dgux > nextstep > sunos4 > svr4 > ultrix4 > univel > > * Dubious, but keep for now: > > bsdi I am no longer on bsdi and I bet there are no more existing users either. I can be removed, I think. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
Robert Haas writes: > ... I don't feel super-strongly about it, but OTOH I see little > reason to keep the Univel spinlock implementation if we're removing > the Univel port. No, I have no objection to that. I was just questioning the wisdom of removing CPU-specific s_lock sections on the grounds that we haven't heard from any users of that CPU lately. Doesn't mean they are not out there. 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough >> to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it >> if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are >> applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct. I'm >> suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K, >> Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX, >> Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or >> stuff I've never heard of. I have no problem keeping whatever people >> are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's >> actually dead for the reasons you state. > > The Renesas implementations were added pretty darn recently, so I think > there are users for those. The others you mention seem dead to me. > On the other hand, exactly how much is it costing us to leave those > sections of s_lock.h in there? It's not like we have any plans to > redefine the spinlock interfaces. Well, actually, one thing I would like to do is add SpinLockConditionalAcquire(). I haven't quite found a compelling argument for having it yet, but it keeps coming up as I noodle around with different techniques to improve concurrency. I think there are some other things we'll want to add eventually, too. Of course none of that is impossible even if we keep everything, but like Peter said it saves work to not have to worry about ports that are completely defunct. I don't feel super-strongly about it, but OTOH I see little reason to keep the Univel spinlock implementation if we're removing the Univel port. If we ever decide to resupport the platform we can fish all the necessary bits out of git, and in fact it'll be easier if a single commit removes all traces of support rather than having it gradually disappear from the tree a bit at a time. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
Robert Haas writes: > I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough > to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it > if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are > applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct. I'm > suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K, > Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX, > Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or > stuff I've never heard of. I have no problem keeping whatever people > are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's > actually dead for the reasons you state. The Renesas implementations were added pretty darn recently, so I think there are users for those. The others you mention seem dead to me. On the other hand, exactly how much is it costing us to leave those sections of s_lock.h in there? It's not like we have any plans to redefine the spinlock interfaces. 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm > suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K, > Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX, > Nextstep, and Sun3 Were there ever multiprocessor Nextstep or Sun3 machines anyways? Wouldn't someone on these OSes want spinlocks to immediately sleep anyways? I did experiment a while back with getting a vax emulator going to build postgres on it but even then I was running NetBSD. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our > source tree. They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or > probably no one remembers what they even were. The code just bit rots > and is in the way of future improvements. I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct. I'm suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K, Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX, Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or stuff I've never heard of. I have no problem keeping whatever people are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's actually dead for the reasons you state. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?
On 04/24/2012 08:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our > source tree. They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or > probably no one remembers what they even were. The code just bit rots > and is in the way of future improvements. > > * Dead/remove: > > dgux > nextstep > sunos4 > svr4 > ultrix4 > univel +1 > > * Dubious, but keep for now: > > bsdi > irix > osf > sco I'm pretty sure I have seen at least semi recent reports of users on at least irix and sco, for the rest of them I think bruce recently stopped using bsdi so the only ever known user of that platform is gone... Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] remove dead ports?
I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our source tree. They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or probably no one remembers what they even were. The code just bit rots and is in the way of future improvements. * Dead/remove: dgux nextstep sunos4 svr4 ultrix4 univel * Dubious, but keep for now: bsdi irix osf sco * No concern: aix cygwin darwin freebsd hpux linux netbsd openbsd solaris unixware win32 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers