On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 02:18:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > It'd be one thing to continue supporting an almost-guaranteed-to-be-unused > > platform, if we expected it to become more popular or complete enough to be > > usable like e.g. risc-v a few years ago. But I doubt we'll find anybody out > > there believing that there's a potential future upward trend for HPPA. > > Indeed. I would have bet that Postgres on HPPA was extinct in the wild, > until I noticed this message a few days ago: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/BYAPR02MB42624ED41C15BFA82DAE2C359BD5A%40BYAPR02MB4262.namprd02.prod.outlook.com > > But we already cut that user off at the knees by removing HP-UX support. > > The remaining argument for worrying about this architecture being in > use in the field is the idea that somebody is using it on top of > NetBSD or OpenBSD. But having used both of those systems (or tried > to), I feel absolutely confident in asserting that nobody is using > it in production today, let alone hoping to continue using it. > > > IMO a single person looking at HPPA code for a few minutes is a cost that > > more > > than outweighs the potential benefits of continuing "supporting" this dead > > arch. Even code that doesn't need to change has costs, particularly if it's > > intermingled with actually important code (which spinlocks certainly are). > > Yup, that. It's not zero cost to carry this stuff.
+1 for dropping it.
