On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-01 14:40:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The best argument for continuing to support Alpha is probably that
Linux does.
>
>>> Not sure why that's an
On 09/01/2015 01:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think we've probably beat this to death. Nobody here believes that
it's sane to try to support Alpha without access to hardware, and no
offer of hardware has been forthcoming. If one were to mater
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we've probably beat this to death. Nobody here believes that
> it's sane to try to support Alpha without access to hardware, and no
> offer of hardware has been forthcoming. If one were to materialize,
> we could usefully have a debate ab
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-09-01 14:40:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> The best argument for continuing to support Alpha is probably that
>>> Linux does.
>> Not sure why that's an argument? I mean linux supports architectures
>> without
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-01 14:40:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I doubt there is a big problem with supporting Alpha apart from
>> lock-free algorithms.
>
> Note that we've had lock-free algorithms for years. E.g. the changecount
> stuff in pgstat.c.
Hmm
Robert Haas writes:
> The best argument for continuing to support Alpha is probably that
> Linux does. I don't know how they do that.
My sneaking suspicion is that they don't very well. In particular,
unless I misunderstand things fundamentally, the coherency issues
would be invisible without a
On 2015-09-01 14:40:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I doubt there is a big problem with supporting Alpha apart from
> lock-free algorithms.
Note that we've had lock-free algorithms for years. E.g. the changecount
stuff in pgstat.c.
> The best argument for continuing to support Alpha is probably th
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
>> At a minimum, we should de-support every platform on which literally
>> no new deployments will ever happen.
>> I'm looking specifically at you, HPUX, and I could make a pretty good
>> case for the idea that we can relegat
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> A useful comparison point is the testing Greg Stark did recently for VAX.
> Certainly no-one's ever again going to try to get useful work done with
> Postgres on a VAX, but that still taught us some good things about
> unnecessary IEEE-floating-p
David Fetter writes:
> At a minimum, we should de-support every platform on which literally
> no new deployments will ever happen.
> I'm looking specifically at you, HPUX, and I could make a pretty good
> case for the idea that we can relegate 32-bit platforms to the ash
> heap of history, at leas
Re: Michael Cree 2015-08-26 <20150826052530.GA4256@tower>
> I reported the failure to build on Alpha, with an explanation and a
> patch to fix it, to the Debian package maintainers over a year ago,
> and within about of a month of version 9.4 being uploaded to Debian.
>
> My recollection is that p
Christoph Berg writes:
> It'd be nice if the patch could get applied to 9.4 and earlier.
I've pushed that patch into 9.4. Barring somebody stepping forward
with an offer of a buildfarm member and any other necessary developer
support, I do not think there will be any further consideration of
rev
On 2015-08-29 08:32:29 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> and I could make a pretty good
> case for the idea that we can relegate 32-bit platforms to the ash
> heap of history, at least on the server side.
Don't see the point, it doesn't cost us very much.
> Then, there's the question of rotating media
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:19:09PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> As it is, we've implicitly prepared to ship Alpha-supporting
> PostgreSQL 9.4 until 2019, by which time the newest Alpha hardware
> will be 15 years old. Computer museums would be our only audience
> for continued support. I do have a
Re: Andrew Dunstan 2015-08-25 <55dc5f9e.60...@dunslane.net>
> >gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement
> >-Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security
> >-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard -g -g -O2 -Wformat
> >-Werror=for
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:49:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > A buildfarm machine would be mandatory, too.
>
> That, however, is not negotiable.
Right. I think the still-open question around PostgreSQL on Alpha is whether
9.1 through 9.4 are meaningfully supported there
Andres Freund writes:
> But I really strongly object to re-introducing alpha support. Having to
> care about data dependency barriers is a huge pita, and it complicates
> code for everyone. And we'd have to investigate a lot of code to
> actually make it work reliably. For what benefit?
I hear yo
On 2015-08-26 12:49:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> As far as that goes, we do have fallback atomics code that's supposed to
> work on anything (and not be unusably slow). So in principle,
> resurrecting the Alpha spinlock code ought to be enough to get back to the
> previous level of support. Coding
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Michael Cree wrote:
>> That is disappointing to hear. Why is that? It is still in use on
>> Alpha. What is the maintenance load for keeping the Alpha arch
>> specific code?
> The amount of code that was removed by the commit isn't all that much:
> http://git.postgresql
Michael Cree writes:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 06:09:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It'd be easy enough to s/rmb/mb/ in 9.4 ... but not sure it's worth
>> the trouble, since we're desupporting Alpha as of 9.5 anyway.
> That is disappointing to hear. Why is that? It is still in use on
> Alpha.
Michael Cree wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 06:09:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Oh really? If rmb were a figment of someone's imagination, it would
> > explain the build failure (although not why nobody's reported it till
> > now).
>
> I reported the failure to build on Alpha, with an explan
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 06:09:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, strictly speaking, there were no uses of pg_read_barrier until 9.4.
> >> However, pg_write_barrier (which used "wmb") was in use since 9.2; so
> >> unless you're claiming your assemble
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, strictly speaking, there were no uses of pg_read_barrier until 9.4.
>> However, pg_write_barrier (which used "wmb") was in use since 9.2; so
>> unless you're claiming your assembler knows wmb but not rmb, the code's
>> failed to compile for Alpha s
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> >> In the 4 years that that particular line has been there, not once had
> >> anyone else run into it on Gentoo until a couple months ago.
> >> And it isn't a case of end users missing it as we have arch testers
> >> that test
On 2015-08-25 15:43:12 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> As for the dropped support, has the Alpha specific code been ripped
> out? Would it still presumably run on Alpha?
I'm pretty sure that postgres hasn't run correctly under concurrency on
alpha for a long while. The lax cache coherency makes d
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>> In the 4 years that that particular line has been there, not once had
>> anyone else run into it on Gentoo until a couple months ago.
>> And it isn't a case of end users missing it as we have arch testers
>> that test packages before marking them
Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> I've been meaning to report this myself.
>
> In the 4 years that that particular line has been there, not once had
> anyone else run into it on Gentoo until a couple months ago.
>
> And it isn't a case of end users missing it as we have arch testers
> that test packages
On 2015-08-25 08:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 08:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-08-25 08:29:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> needs a buildfarm animal. If we had one we'd presumably have caught this
> >> much earlier.
> > On the other hand, we dropped alpha support in 9.5,
On 08/25/2015 08:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-08-25 08:29:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
needs a buildfarm animal. If we had one we'd presumably have caught this
much earlier.
On the other hand, we dropped alpha support in 9.5, ...
Oh, I missed that. Sorry for the noise.
cheers
On 2015-08-25 08:29:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> needs a buildfarm animal. If we had one we'd presumably have caught this
> much earlier.
On the other hand, we dropped alpha support in 9.5, ...
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your su
On 08/25/2015 06:16 AM, Christoph Berg wrote:
Hi,
>From the Debian ports buildd:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=postgresql-9.4&arch=alpha&ver=9.4.4-1&stamp=1434132509
make[5]: Entering directory '/«PKGBUILDDIR»/build/src/backend/postmaster'
[...]
gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototype
Hi,
>From the Debian ports buildd:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=postgresql-9.4&arch=alpha&ver=9.4.4-1&stamp=1434132509
make[5]: Entering directory '/«PKGBUILDDIR»/build/src/backend/postmaster'
[...]
gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement
-
32 matches
Mail list logo
