Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-05-20 16:44:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hm. Anole hasn't reported reliably for a while before these. It's quite
>>> possible that this is a ac++ portability problem around the
>>> atomics. There's lots of other IA64 animals not having problems, but
>>> they're not using ac++.
>> Lots? As far as I can tell, this is the only Itanium machine in the
>> buildfarm.
> Uh. I'm pretty sure there were some back when that patch went in. And
> there definitely used to be a couple earlier. I guess itanium really is
> dying (mixed bad: It's a horrible architecture, but more coverage would
> still be good).
Since that machine is run by EDB, maybe we could persuade them to set up
a second critter on it that uses gcc. That would at least help narrow
down whether it's a compiler-specific issue.
(It's times like this that I regret not working for Red Hat any more,
and having access to all their test hardware ...)
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
