On 2013-10-12 18:35:00 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Not so sure about these. > > - M32R (no userspace CAS afaics)
I don't think M32R will hurt us/anybody much. > > - 32bit/<v9 sparc (doesn't have proper atomics, old) Sparc v9 is from 1995, so I think not supporting it anymore is fair. It's afaics not supported by sun studio's intrics either. > > - mips for anything but gcc > 4.4, using gcc's atomics support The reason I'd like to de-support mips for older GCCs is that writing assembler for them isn't trivial enough to do it blindly and I've had - for other stuff - difficulties getting my hand on them. GCC provides all the atomics for mips since 4.2, so we can just rely on that. > > - s390 for anything but gcc > 4.4, using gcc's atomics support Easier to write assembler, but still untestable and even harder to get access on. I think 4.2 should be fine as well. > I think we should think hard about removing support for MIPS. A lot of > Chinese chip manufacturers have licensed MIPS technology in just the > last couple of years, so there is plenty of it out there; I'd be > slightly concerned that the proposed restrictions on MIPS would be > onerous. Much of this is the kind of hardware that a person might > plausibly want to run Postgres on. That's a fair point. But all of them will use gcc, right? I've previously thought we'd need 4.4 because there's an incompatibility between 4.3 and 4.4 but I think it won't touch us, so 4.2 which added atomics for mips seems fine. Given there's no buildfarm animal and there's lots of variety out there that seems like a fair amount of support. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
