Re: AIX support

On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 10:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I'm surprised how big the difference is, because I actually expected the > compiler to detect the memory-zeroing loop and replace it with some > fancy vector instructions (does powerpc have any?). It certainly does, and we've played with

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, Please find the attached diff with the latest changes. The diff file changes that were done for memset and spinlock, are modified on top of the previous patch. New changes for review: 0001-AIX-support.tas.memset.diffs Previous patch: 0001-AIX-support.v8.patch >> diff --git a/src/includ

RE: AIX support

Working on the patch. I will update you. -Sriram.

RE: AIX support

Here are some stats wrt to loop and native memset after enabling optimization with the same test tool(tested for long and long align using MemSetAligned). Corresponding glibc is linked on PPcle and AIX libc is linked on AIX. https://postgrespro.com/list/thread-id/1673194

Re: AIX support

On 05/04/2025 21:29, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote:  - WRT to the MEMSET_LOOP_LIMIT flag, this is set to “0”, which would internally use Yes, I understand what it does. But why? Whatever benchmarking was done back in 2006 by is no longer relevant. We ran the program , mentioned in the below lin

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki, Please find the attached patch addressing the provided comments. Our responses are outlined below. >> - src/backend/port/aix/mkldexport.sh> > Oh, that's interesting. So if we do that, we don't need mkldepxort.sh > anymore? Here the better approach still would be to use the script to e

Re: AIX support

On 04/04/2025 22:31, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > - src/backend/port/aix/mkldexport.sh>   - When building shared libraries from various archives on AIX, we encounter a situation where symbols are not exported. To resolve this, we require an export file. For instance, the command is

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki and team, Thank you for considering our request. As discussed, we have revised the patch to incorporate all the review comments provided. Please find the attached patch, which focuses solely on the gmake changes. As discussed the meson specific changes would be provided as different pat

Re: AIX support

Hi, On 2025-04-03 13:45:01 +, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > We are nearly ready to deliver the patch. Currently, we have compiled the > source using Meson and are investigating one test case issue. Once we pinpoint > the cause, we will send you the patch. Notably, this test case behaves > diff

Re: AIX support

On 03/04/2025 16:45, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: Hi Wenhui Qiu, May I know the freeze dates. April 8th is the feature freeze. Any new features must be *committed* by then. We are already very close to that, and given that there's no concrete patch for committer to review yet, I think it's sa

RE: AIX support

Hi Wenhui Qiu, May I know the freeze dates. We are nearly ready to deliver the patch. Currently, we have compiled the source using Meson and are investigating one test case issue. Once we pinpoint the cause, we will send you the patch. Notably, this test case behaves differently on AIX, opting fo

Re: AIX support

HI Srirama It's getting close to code freeze. Any updates from your end? Thanks On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:58 AM Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > Hi Team, > > Here are the updates on the meson on AIX. Our team had pushed the fixes > meson github here … > > > > https://github.com/mesonbuild

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, Here are the updates on the meson on AIX. Our team had pushed the fixes meson github here … https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pull/14335 #14335 Enhance AIX shared library build to use an export List.

Re: AIX support

On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:11 AM Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > Our team has identified couple of issues with the meson build on AIX, > primarily focusing on the following areas: > > Symbol extraction and resolution in object files during binary creation. > Dynamic runtime library path resolution in

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, Our team has identified couple of issues with the meson build on AIX, primarily focusing on the following areas: 1. Symbol extraction and resolution in object files during binary creation. 2. Dynamic runtime library path resolution in shared libraries. We have resolved them and we

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, A few updates regarding the meson build. We have successfully resolved issues with the meson build on AIX, allowing the meson configure and build to succeed. A problem was addressed in the meson script wrt AIX (to build a nested shared libraries), specifically in the symbolextractor.py

RE: AIX support

> Meson appears to have AIX support, so it's worth trying out. Right, meson is supported on AIX, we have meson in our AIX toolbox. We are trying to build with meson as well. I shall update you. BTW, I would like to wish the entire Postgres community a Happy new year. Warm regards, Sriram.

Re: AIX support

Hi, On December 30, 2024 10:29:53 AM GMT+01:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >On 25.12.24 11:22, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Thanks for the links. It's disappointing there isn't a standard way to do >> this. It's nice to see the comments in cpython's makeexp_aix script >> explaining the "hidden tr

Re: AIX support

On 25.12.24 11:22, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Thanks for the links. It's disappointing there isn't a standard way to do this. It's nice to see the comments in cpython's makeexp_aix script explaining the "hidden tricks". I'd love to see similar comments in mkldexport.sh explaining what it does. A

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki, Thanks for your feedback. > Please generate the patches against 'master', rather than v17. We might > choose to backport this to v17 later, but let's focus on the current > development branch for now. All the changes were made on top of master(development) branch pulled from github re

Re: AIX support

On 23/12/2024 17:55, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: Hello Team, In response to our previous discussions, we have refined the code to address only the necessary adjustments focusing solely on the essential modifications for AIX compatibility. The codebase was pulled from the GitHub repository (

RE: AIX support

Hello Team, In response to our previous discussions, we have refined the code to address only the necessary adjustments focusing solely on the essential modifications for AIX compatibility. The codebase was pulled from the GitHub repository (https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git) and we resolved

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, few more updates on the buildfarm, all the tests have passed and below is the gist of the logs. We are working on the cleaning up the changes and will post them for review. Tue Dec 3 04:08:29 2024: buildfarm run for CHANGEME:HEAD starting CHANGEME:HEAD [04:09:49

RE: AIX support

>> This is not an AIX-specific issue. It was fixed in commit >> af21152268317323480caa790c4a6347110f8085, committed October 30th. Thanks Robert, it worked after applying this change. Warm regards, Sriram.

Re: AIX support

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 11:27 AM Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > After modifying the expected output for this testcase as below, the issue was > resolved and the test case passed. But we are trying to see the root cause of > this. > > "12:34:56-08:00" This is not an AIX-specific issue. It was fixe

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, here are few updates. As of now we have removed all the old changes and made the changes that are pretty much required by building from scratch. We had few issues with our hardware as a result it took a while to build the code. Below are the changes done as of now. commit d2b4b4c2259e

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki and team, A few updates… > > Ok, if we don't need the assembler code at all, that's good. A patch to > > introduce AIX support should not change it for non-AIX powerpc systems > > though. That might be a good change, but would need to be justified > > separately, e.g. by some p

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki, As requested earlier, I need some assistance from the Postgres side to identify any tool or testcase to calibrate the sync routine performance in Postgres. I see the below tools for benchmarking. * Pgbench https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pgbench.html * Pg_test_fsync h

Re: AIX support

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 04:09:39PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 24/09/2024 14:25, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > > Hi Heikki & team, > > > > Could you please let me know your comments on the previous details? > > > > Attached are the individual patches for AIX and gcc(__sync) routines. >

Re: AIX support

On 24/09/2024 14:25, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: Hi Heikki & team, Could you please let me know your comments on the previous details? Attached are the individual patches for AIX and gcc(__sync) routines. Repeating what I said earlier: Ok, if we don't need the assembler code at all, that's

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki & team, Could you please let me know your comments on the previous details? Attached are the individual patches for AIX and gcc(__sync) routines. Thanks, Sriram. 0001-AIX-support-revert-the-changes-from-0b16bb8776bb8.v5.patch Description: 0001-AIX-support-revert-the-changes-from-0b

RE: AIX support

> Do you still need mkldexport.sh? Surely there's a better way to do that > in year 2024. Some quick googling says there's a '-bexpall' option to > 'ld', which kind of sounds like what we want. Will that work? How do > other programs do this? We have noticed couple of caveats with

RE: AIX support

> The PPC asm code was originally written in 2002, and the first use of > _ sync_lock_test_and_set(), for ARM, appeared in 2012. The commit that > made __sync_lock_test_and_set() be chosen automatically for platforms > that don't specify anything else was added in 2022. Thanks for

Re: AIX support

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 9:57 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > If you make no changes to s_lock.h at all, will it work? Why not? It's good to keep the work independent and I don't want to hold up anything happening in this thread, but just for information: I have been poking around at the idea of en

Re: AIX support

On 11/09/2024 15:38, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: I still don't understand. We have Linux powerpc systems running happily in the buildfarm. They are happy with the current spinlock implementation. Why is this needed? What happens without it? Not sure, by the time the below commits were made if t

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki and Team, Thanks for your comments. Here are some more details > I still don't understand. We have Linux powerpc systems > running happily in the buildfarm. They are happy with the > current spinlock implementation. Why is this needed? > What happens without it? Not sur

Re: AIX support

On 14/08/2024 18:22, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: Hi Heikki, I have attached the merged patch with all the changes, the earlier patch was just only the changes specific to older review comments.     > I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Do you mean that     > we don't need

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki, I have attached the merged patch with all the changes, the earlier patch was just only the changes specific to older review comments. > I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Do you mean that > we don't need to do anything here, and the code we have in s_lock.h

Re: AIX support

On 14/08/2024 06:31, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: Hi Heikki & Team, I tried to look at the assembly code changes with our team, in the below file. diff --git a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h index 29ac6cdcd9..69582f4ae7 100644 --- a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h +++

RE: AIX support

Hi Heikki & Team, I tried to look at the assembly code changes with our team, in the below file. diff --git a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h index 29ac6cdcd9..69582f4ae7 100644 --- a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h +++ b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h static __inli

RE: AIX support

We are continuing to work on the changes… > Do you still care about 32-bit binaries on AIX? If not, let's make that > the default in configure or a check for it, and remove the instructions > on building 32-bit binaries from the docs. As most of the products are moving towards 64bit, we wil

Re: AIX support

On 19/06/2024 17:55, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: +/* Commenting for XLC + * "IBM XL C/C++ for AIX, V12.1" miscompiles, for 32-bit, some inline + * expansions of ginCompareItemPointers() "long long" arithmetic. To take + * advantage of inlining, build a 64-bit PostgreSQL. +#if defined(__ILP32__)

RE: AIX support

com , postgres-ibm-...@wwpdl.vnet.ibm.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AIX support On 19/06/2024 17:55, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > +/* Commenting for XLC > + * "IBM XL C/C++ for AIX, V12.1" miscompiles, for 32-bit, some inline > + * expansions of ginCompareItemPointers() "long long&

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, Please find the attached patch, which resumes the AIX support with gcc alone. We have removed changes wrt to XLC on AIX. We are also continuing to work on the XLC and IBM-clang(openXLC) specific patch as well. Once we get an approval for the above patch we can submit a subsequent patch

RE: AIX support

Hi Laurenz, we are working on the other file changes, we shall post you the updates soon. Warm regards, Sriram.

Re: AIX support

On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 16:30 +, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: > Hi Team, We are pursuing to trim the changes wrt AIX. As of now we trimmed > the changes with respect to XLC and currently with trimmed changes the > buildfarm script passed (build and all the regression tests) > The XLC changes were

RE: AIX support

Hi Team, We are pursuing to trim the changes wrt AIX. As of now we trimmed the changes with respect to XLC and currently with trimmed changes the buildfarm script passed (build and all the regression tests) The XLC changes were trimmed only in the below file modified: configure modified: co

Re: AIX support

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 07:03:20PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Can you provide some more details on the expectations here? > > Smallest possible patch that makes Postgres work on AIX again. > > Perhaps start with the patch you posted yesterday, but remove hunks from it > one by one, to s

Re: AIX support

On 23/05/2024 18:36, Srirama Kucherlapati wrote: Hi Peter, thanks for your feedback. We are eager to extend our support in resolving the issues specific to AIX or corresponding compilers (XLC and cLang). But as there are no issues with the patch after reverting the changes(with the latest co

RE: AIX support

Hi Peter, thanks for your feedback. We are eager to extend our support in resolving the issues specific to AIX or corresponding compilers (XLC and cLang). But as there are no issues with the patch after reverting the changes(with the latest compilers gcc12 and xlc-16.0.1.18), we were wondering

Re: AIX support

On 22.05.24 18:15, Sriram RK wrote: Please find the attached patch. Apart from the AIX specific changes, there is a minor change in this file wrt to XLC, below is the error for which we removed inline. Later, the build and tests passed for both XLC(16.1.0.18) and gcc(12) as well. I think w

Re: AIX support

Thanks Alvaro, for the info… Hi Team, We referred to the below links to build this patch … https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch https://peter.eisentraut.org/blog/2023/05/09/how-to-submit-a-patch-by-email-2023-edition Please find the attached patch. Apart from the AIX specific chan

Re: AIX support

On 2024-May-16, Sriram RK wrote: > Hi Team, > > We have an update wrt to the PG17 AIX port. > > We have reverted the changes specific to AIX (that were removed in > 0b16bb8776bb8) to the latest PG17 (head). > > The Buildfarm succeeded for these changes. All the tests passed. Excellent. > Can

Re: AIX support

Hi Team, We have an update wrt to the PG17 AIX port. We have reverted the changes specific to AIX (that were removed in 0b16bb8776bb8) to the latest PG17 (head). The Buildfarm succeeded for these changes. All the tests passed. System config OS level : AIX-73D Compil

Re: AIX support

> > Also would like to know some info related to the request raised for > > buildfarm access, to register the > > node in OSU lab. Where can I get the status of the request? Whom can I > > contact to get the request > > approved? So that we can add the node to the buildfarm. > I assume you fille

Re: AIX support

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 03:33:25PM +, Sriram RK wrote: > Hi Team, we have any updated from the XLC team, the issue specific to the > alignment is fixed > and XLC had released it as part of 16.1.0.18. The PTF is available at the > below location, > > You can also find a link here: > https://w

Re: AIX support

Hi Team, we have any updated from the XLC team, the issue specific to the alignment is fixed and XLC had released it as part of 16.1.0.18. The PTF is available at the below location, You can also find a link here: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/fix-list-xl-cc-aix. >>/opt/IBM/xlC/16.1.0/bin/x

Re: AIX support

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 03:44:12PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 08.05.24 13:39, Sriram RK wrote: > > We would like to understand your inputs/plans on reverting the changes > > for AIX. > > I think the ship has sailed for PG17. The way forward would be that you > submit a patch for new, mod

Re: AIX support

On 08.05.24 13:39, Sriram RK wrote: We would like to understand your inputs/plans on reverting the changes for AIX. I think the ship has sailed for PG17. The way forward would be that you submit a patch for new, modernized AIX support for PG18.

Re: AIX support

Hi Team, We have the AIX node ready in OSU lab, and the branches 15 and 16 got build on the node. We had raised a request to register this node as buildfarm member. Yet to receive the approval. We would like to understand your inputs/plans on reverting the changes for AIX. Thanks, Sriram.

Re: AIX support

Hi Team, on further investigation we were able to resolve the perl issue by setting the right PERL env location. Earlier it was pointing to the 32bit perl, as a result the perl lib mismatch seems to be happening. Now we have successfully built release 15 and 16 stable branches on the OSU lab nod

Re: AIX support

Hi Team, There are couple of updates, firstly we got an AIX node on the OSU lab. Please feel free to reach me, so that we can provide access to the node. We have started working on setting up the buildfarm on that node. Secondly, as part of the buildfarm setup on our local nodes, we are hitting a

Re: AIX support

> > It would definitely make sense for a new port to start by getting > > things going with gcc only, and then look at resurrecting xlc > > support. > Sriram mentioned upthread that he was looking at both of them. I'd be > ready to assume that most of the interest is in xlc, not gcc. But I > ma

Re: AIX support

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 01:06:24PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Anyway, getting an access to such compilers to be able to debug issues > on hosts that take less than 12h to just compile the code would > certainly help its adoption. So seeing commitment in the form of > patches and access to env

Re: AIX support

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:16:34AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2024-Apr-24, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I agree that targeting PG 18 for a new-er AIX port is the reasonable > > approach. If there is huge demand, someone can create an AIX fork for > > PG 17 using the reverted patches --- yeah

Re: AIX support

Hi, On 2024-04-25 00:20:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Something I've been mulling over is whether to suggest that the > proposed "new port" should only target building with gcc. Yes. I also wonder if such a port should only support building with sysv style shared library support, rather than the A

Re: AIX support

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 25.04.24 06:20, Tom Lane wrote: >> Something I've been mulling over is whether to suggest that the >> proposed "new port" should only target building with gcc. > My understanding is that the old xlc is dead and has been replaced by > "xlclang", which is presumably a

Re: AIX support

On 2024-Apr-24, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I agree that targeting PG 18 for a new-er AIX port is the reasonable > approach. If there is huge demand, someone can create an AIX fork for > PG 17 using the reverted patches --- yeah, lots of pain there, but we > have carried the AIX pain for too long with

Re: AIX support

On 25.04.24 06:20, Tom Lane wrote: Something I've been mulling over is whether to suggest that the proposed "new port" should only target building with gcc. On the one hand, that would (I think) remove a number of annoying issues, and the average end user is unlikely to care which compiler their

Re: AIX support

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:20:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > It would definitely make sense for a new port to start by getting > things going with gcc only, and then look at resurrecting xlc > support. Sriram mentioned upthread that he was looking at both of them. I'd be ready to assume that most

Re: AIX support

Michael Paquier writes: > Some of the portability changes removed in 0b16bb877 feel indeed > obsolete, so it may not hurt to start an analysis from scratch to see > the minimum amount of work that would be really required with the > latest versions of xlc, using the newest compilers as a supported

Re: AIX support

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:39:37PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:25:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> So I'm totally not in favor of #1, at least not without some hard >> commitments and follow-through on really cleaning up the mess >> (which maybe looks more like your #2).

Re: AIX support

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:25:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I can see several ways going forward: > > 1. We revert the removal of AIX support and carry on with the status quo > > ante. (The removal of AIX is a regression; it is timely and in scope > > now to revert the change.) > > 2. Like (1)

Re: AIX support

On Sat Apr 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote: 3. We leave it out of PG17 and consider a new AIX port for PG18 on its own merits. Note that such a "new" port would probably require quite a bit of development and research work, to clean up all the cruft that had accumulated ove

Re: AIX support

Hi Team, > I have some sympathy for this. The discussion about removing AIX > support had a very short turnaround and happened in an unrelated thread, > without any sort of public announcement or consultation. So this report > of "hey, we were still using that" is timely and fair. We wou

Re: AIX support

Peter Eisentraut writes: > I have some sympathy for this. The discussion about removing AIX > support had a very short turnaround and happened in an unrelated thread, > without any sort of public announcement or consultation. So this report > of "hey, we were still using that" is timely and f

Re: AIX support

On 19.04.24 13:04, Sriram RK wrote: For any complier/hardware related issue we should able to provide support. We are in the process of identifying the AIX systems that can be added to the CI/buildfarm environment. I think we should manage expectations here, if there is any hope of getting A

Re: AIX support

For any complier/hardware related issue we should able to provide support. We are in the process of identifying the AIX systems that can be added to the CI/buildfarm environment. Regards, Sriram.

Re: AIX support

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:01 AM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2024-04-18 11:15:43 +, Sriram RK wrote: > > We (IBM-AIX team) looked into this issue > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240225194322...@rfd.leadboat.com > > > > This is related to the compiler issue. The compilers xlc(13.1)

Re: AIX support

Hi, On 2024-04-18 11:15:43 +, Sriram RK wrote: > We (IBM-AIX team) looked into this issue > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240225194322...@rfd.leadboat.com > > This is related to the compiler issue. The compilers xlc(13.1) and gcc(8.0) > have issues. But we verified that this issue

Re: AIX support

> Let's start by setting up a new AIX buildfarm member. Regardless of what we > do with v17, we continue to support AIX on the stable branches, and we really > need a buildfarm member to keep the stable branches working anyway. Thanks Heikki. We had already build the source code(v17+ bcdfa5f2e2

Re: AIX support

On 18 April 2024 14:15:43 GMT+03:00, Sriram RK wrote: >Thanks Noah and Team, > >We (IBM-AIX team) looked into this issue > >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240225194322...@rfd.leadboat.com > >This is related to the compiler issue. The compilers xlc(13.1) and gcc(8.0) >have issues. But we

Re: AIX support

Thanks Noah and Team, We (IBM-AIX team) looked into this issue https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240225194322...@rfd.leadboat.com This is related to the compiler issue. The compilers xlc(13.1) and gcc(8.0) have issues. But we verified that this issue is resolved with the newer compiler v

Re: AIX support

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 04:12:06PM +, Sriram RK wrote: > > > What you do need to do to reproduce the described problems is > > check out the Postgres git tree and rewind to just before > > commit 0b16bb877, where we deleted AIX support. Any attempt > > to restore AIX support would have to sta

Re: AIX support

derstand if there are any source level changes between the ftp server and the source on github? Regards, Sriram. From: Tom Lane Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 9:03 AM To: Thomas Munro Cc: Noah Misch , Sriram RK , Alvaro Herrera , pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org Subject: Re: AIX support Th

Re: AIX support

Thomas Munro writes: > Oh, sorry, I had missed the part where newer compilers fix the issue > too. Old out-of-support versions of AIX running old compilers, what > fun. Indeed. One of the topics that needs investigation if you want to pursue this is which AIX system and compiler versions still

Re: AIX support

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 4:00 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 3:48 PM Noah Misch wrote: > > The thread Alvaro and Tom cited contains an analysis. It's a compiler bug. > > You can get past the compiler bug by upgrading your compiler; both ibm-clang > > 17.1.1.2 and gcc 13.2.0 are

Re: AIX support

Noah Misch writes: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:09:43AM +, Sriram RK wrote: >> Also, would like to know if we can access the buildfarm(power machines) to >> run any of the specific tests to hit this assert. > https://portal.cfarm.net/users/new/ is the form to request access. It lists > the

Re: AIX support

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 3:48 PM Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:09:43AM +, Sriram RK wrote: > > We are setting up the build environment and trying to build the source and > > also trying to analyze the assert from the Aix point of view. > > The thread Alvaro and Tom cited conta

Re: AIX support

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:09:43AM +, Sriram RK wrote: > We are setting up the build environment and trying to build the source and > also trying to analyze the assert from the Aix point of view. The thread Alvaro and Tom cited contains an analysis. It's a compiler bug. You can get past the

Re: AIX support

ards, Sriram. > From: Sriram RK > Date: Thursday, 21 March 2024 at 10:05 PM > To: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us<mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera > Cc: pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org<mailto:pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: AIX support > Th

Re: AIX support

Thanks, Tom and Alvaro, for the info. We shall look into to details and get back. From: Tom Lane Date: Thursday, 21 March 2024 at 7:27 PM To: Sriram RK Cc: pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org Subject: Re: AIX support Sriram RK writes: > We are working on AIX systems and noticed that the thread

Re: AIX support

Sriram RK writes: > We are working on AIX systems and noticed that the thread on removing AIX > support in Postgres going forward. > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/0b16bb8776bb834eb1ef8204ca95dd7667ab948b > We would be glad to understand any outstanding issues hindering the > support

Re: AIX support

On 2024-Mar-21, Sriram RK wrote: > Hello Team, > > We are working on AIX systems and noticed that the thread on removing AIX > support in Postgres going forward. > > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/0b16bb8776bb834eb1ef8204ca95dd7667ab948b” > > We would be glad to understand any out

Re: AIX support - alignment issues

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:30 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: > > Here's a patch to remove all of these. > > Looks sane by eyeball --- I didn't grep for other references, though. Thanks, pushed. > > I didn't originally suggest that because of some kind of (mostly > > vicarious) nostal

Re: AIX support - alignment issues

Thomas Munro writes: > Here's a patch to remove all of these. Looks sane by eyeball --- I didn't grep for other references, though. > I didn't originally suggest that because of some kind of (mostly > vicarious) nostalgia. I wonder if we should allow ourselves a > paragraph where we remember th

Re: AIX support - alignment issues

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:24 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: > > It's funny to think that you probably could run modern PostgreSQL on > > the Sun 3 boxes the project started on in 1986 (based on clues from > > the papers in our history section) if you put NetBSD on them, but > > you'd p

Re: AIX support - alignment issues

Thomas Munro writes: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:49 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> SuperH might be twitching a bit less feebly than these three, >> but it seems to be a legacy architecture as well. Not much >> has happened there since the early 2000's AFAICS. > It looks like there's an sh3el package for

Re: AIX support - alignment issues

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:49 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> I think it'd be pretty reasonable to disclaim support for >> any architecture that doesn't have a representative in our >> buildfarm, which would lead to dropping all four of these. >> If you don't like it, step up and run a

Re: AIX support - alignment issues

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:49 AM Tom Lane wrote: > While we're here ... > > + Code support exists for M68K, M88K, M32R, and SuperH, but these > architectures are not known to have been tested recently. > > I think it'd be pretty reasonable to disclaim support for > any architecture that doesn

  1   2   >