Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> With respect to this particular thing, it's hard for me to imagine >> that anything will go wrong on ppcle that we wouldn't consider a >> back-patchable fix, so there might be no

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

Sandeep Thakkar writes: > So, config.guess should be changed to include the build type for ppc64le > like it is in 9.4+ branches. So far as I can tell from a quick troll of the git history, we have never ever updated config.guess/config.sub in released branches.

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> So, config.guess should be changed to include the build type for ppc64le >>> like it is in 9.4+ branches. >> >> So far as I can tell from a quick troll of the git history, we have never >> ever updated

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

On 12/08/2015 10:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Sandeep Thakkar writes: So, config.guess should be changed to include the build type for ppc64le like it is in 9.4+ branches. So far as I can tell from a quick troll of the git history, we have never ever updated

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

Robert Haas writes: > I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but is the > reason we haven't updated config.guess and config.sub in the past that > it presents an actual stability risk, or just that nobody's asked > before? Because the first one is a good

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but is the >> reason we haven't updated config.guess and config.sub in the past that >> it presents an actual stability

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

Robert Haas writes: > With respect to this particular thing, it's hard for me to imagine > that anything will go wrong on ppcle that we wouldn't consider a > back-patchable fix, so there might be no harm in adjusting > config.guess and config.sub. FWIW, I also suspect that

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

Hi Tom With --build=powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu in the config_opts section of build-farm.conf, the build and the regression were successful. Well, by the time the decision is made on this, I have enabled only 9.4+ runs on ppc64le. The results from this buildfarm member 'clam' are now being

Re: [HACKERS] Include ppc64le build type for back branches

On 12/8/15 1:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but is the > reason we haven't updated config.guess and config.sub in the past that > it presents an actual stability risk, or just that nobody's asked > before? Because the first one is a good reason