Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-06-24 13:03:37 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> If a change has the potential to make some architectures give wrong
>> answers only at odd times, that's a different kind of problem. For
>> that reason, actively breaking Alpha is a good thing.
> Not sure what you mean with the 'actively breaking Alpha' statement?
> That we should drop Alpha?
+1. Especially with no buildfarm critter. Would anyone here care
to bet even the price of a burger that Alpha isn't broken already?
Even if we *had* an Alpha in the buildfarm, I'd have pretty small
confidence in whether our code really worked on it. The buildfarm
tests just don't stress heavily-concurrent behavior enough.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
