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

x b/src/makefiles/Makefile.aix >> +MAKE_EXPORTS= true >Oh this is interesting. I think MAKE_EXPORTS is actually a leftover that >I failed to remove when I removed the AIX support; it's not used on any >currently-supported platform. Removed it and its working fine. >> +# -

Re: AIX support

n the patch, so that I and others understand it. Or even better, remove it if it's not necessary. diff --git a/src/makefiles/Makefile.aix b/src/makefiles/Makefile.aix new file mode 100644 index 000..d33918f91b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/makefiles/Makefile.aix @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +# MAKE

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

x script >> explaining the "hidden tricks". I'd love to see similar comments in >> mkldexport.sh explaining what it does. And also why the script is needed on >> AIX in the first place. >> >> I wonder if meson's AIX support would have something bui

Re: AIX support

ldexport.sh explaining what it does. And also why the script is needed on AIX in the first place. I wonder if meson's AIX support would have something built-in to do this? Meson appears to have AIX support, so it's worth trying out. If it's working, then it would also be worth

RE: AIX support

..@in.ibm.com<mailto:sriram...@in.ibm.com> Date: Fri Dec 6 10:36:29 2024 -0600 AIX support commit d2b4b4c2259e21ceaf05e393769b69728bfbee99 (origin/master, origin/HEAD, gitibm/master, master) Author: Peter Eisentraut pe...@eisentraut.org<mailto:pe...@eisentraut.org> Date: Tue Oct 22 08

Re: AIX support

4332139868806cbe23f275963e4e6afa9b57e51b2b9817293R261> 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

RE: AIX support

ested, and aligned with the requirements for AIX. If you have any additional feedback or concerns, please let us know. Warm regards, Sriram. 0001-AIX-support-v6.patch Description: 0001-AIX-support-v6.patch

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 &

RE: AIX support

;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 performance testing, and should be a separa

Re: AIX support

ches for AIX and gcc(__sync) routines. > > Repeating what I said earlier: > > > 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

Re: AIX support

l, 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 performance testing, and should be a separate patch -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)

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-

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

2022. Thanks for the info. -- > 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 justi

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

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 performance testing, and should be a separate patch. If you make no changes to s_lock.h at all, w

RE: AIX support

7d7e953c6a03b0fa2215d97c581b0c commit 631beeac3598a73dee2c2afa38fa2e734148031b commit bc2a050d40976441cdb963ad829316c23e8df0aa commit c41a1215f04912108068b909569551f42059db29 commit 50938576d482cd36e52a60b5bb1b56026e63962a Please let me know if would like to try on the hardware, we have recently setup

Re: AIX support

instead? Here we need these changes for ppc. These changes are not for enabling the AIX support, but this is implementing “Enhanced PowerPC Architecture”. This routine is more of compare_and_increment, which is different from GCC __sync_lock_test_and_set(). Also I tried to write a sampl

RE: AIX support

e code we have in s_lock.h in > 'master' now will work fine on AIX? Or do we need to (re-)do some > changes to support AIX again? If we only support GCC, can we use the > __sync_lock_test_and_set() builtin instead? Here we need these changes for ppc. These changes a

Re: AIX support

both the assemble changes if you are looking for anything specific to the architecture. I don't know. You tell me what makes most sense on AIX / powerpc. Attached is the patch for the previous comments, kindly please let me know your comments. Is this all that's needed to resurrect AIX support? -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)

RE: AIX support

I was trying to understand here wrt to both the assemble changes if you are looking for anything specific to the architecture. Attached is the patch for the previous comments, kindly please let me know your comments. Warm regards, Sriram. 0001-AIX-support-revert-changes-from-0b16bb8776bb.v3.patch Description: 0001-AIX-support-revert-changes-from-0b16bb8776bb.v3.patch

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

waiting for all the hacks to be fixed. I'm not eager to put back those hacks just to have them be removed again. So I'd like to see a minimal patch, with the *minimal* changes required for AIX support. And perhaps split that into two patches: First add back AIX support with GCC, and se

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

". gmake[4]: *** [: bufmgr.o] Error 1 Please let us know your feedback. Thanks, Sriram. 0001-AIX-support-revert-the-changes-from-0b16bb8776bb8.patch Description: 0001-AIX-support-revert-the-changes-from-0b16bb8776bb8.patch

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

; submit a patch for new, modernized AIX support for PG18. Yes, I think we were clear that someone needs to review the reverted patch and figure out which parts are still needed, and why. We have no "plans" to restore support. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EDB

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

;t want to just revert the AIX-ectomy and continue drifting. >> >> On the whole, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if PG 17 >> lacks AIX support but that comes back in PG 18. That approach would >> solve the schedule-crunch aspect and give time for considered

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

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 ti

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 th

Re: AIX support

AIX support back into PG17. 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 timel

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

aded in September-ish, long after many threads on this list that between-the-lines threatened to drop support. > This is generally one of the big issues with AIX support. There are other > niche-y OSs that don't have a lot of users, e.g. openbsd, but in contrast to > AIX I can just

Re: AIX support

We have to rely on whatever the aix machines there provide. They're not particularly plentiful resource-wise either. This is generally one of the big issues with AIX support. There are other niche-y OSs that don't have a lot of users, e.g. openbsd, but in contrast to AIX I can just sta

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

available. But for time being can we start >reverting the patch that has removed 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

Re: AIX support

of the support, we will help in fixing all the issues related to AIX and continue to support AIX for Postgres. If we need another CI environment we can work to make one available. But for time being can we start reverting the patch that has removed AIX support. We want to make a note that

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 restor

Re: AIX support

> 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 start with reverting that > commit (and perhaps the fol

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

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 start with reverting that commit (and perhaps the followup f0827b443). regards, tom lane

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 h

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 b

AIX support

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 outstanding issues hindering the support on AIX. It

RE: Remove AIX Support (was: Re: Relation bulk write facility)

pgsql-hackers ; Melanie Plageman Objet : Re: Remove AIX Support (was: Re: Relation bulk write facility) Hi, On 2024-02-29 10:24:24 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:57:31AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2024-02-29 09:13:04 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > >

Re: Remove AIX Support (was: Re: Relation bulk write facility)

> On 29 Feb 2024, at 10:24, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:57:31AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: >> Then these users should have paid somebody to actually do maintenance work on >> the AIX support,o it doesn't regularly stand in the way of impleme

Re: Remove AIX Support (was: Re: Relation bulk write facility)

and not as a > > > thought-experiment. It is probably well-known among Postgres hackers > > > that AIX support is problematic/a burden, but the current users might > > > not be aware of this. > > > > Then these users should have paid somebody to actual

Re: Remove AIX Support (was: Re: Relation bulk write facility)

t; or Irix, I believe Postgres on AIX is still used in production and if > > so, probably in a mission-critical manner at some old-school > > institutions (in fact, one of our customers does just that) and not as a > > thought-experiment. It is probably well-known among Postgres hack

Re: Remove AIX Support (was: Re: Relation bulk write facility)

robably in a mission-critical manner at some old-school > institutions (in fact, one of our customers does just that) and not as a > thought-experiment. It is probably well-known among Postgres hackers > that AIX support is problematic/a burden, but the current users might > not be aware of

  1   2   >