On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > Removing support for alpha is a different animal compared to removing support > for non-gcc MIPS and most of the others in your list. A hacker wishing to > restore support for another MIPS compiler would fill in the assembly code > blanks, probably using code right out of an architecture manual. A hacker > wishing to restore support for alpha would find himself auditing every > lock-impoverished algorithm in the backend.
I had much the same thought last night. So I reverse my vote on Alpha: let's drop it. I had thought that perhaps there'd be some value in keeping it to force ourselves to consider what will happen under the weakest generally-understood memory model, but in fact that's probably a doomed effort without having the hardware available to test the code. As you say, any future atomics support for such a platform will be a major undertaking. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
