Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha! - Mailing list pgsql-ports

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!
Date
Msg-id 11934.933357578@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!  (Ryan Kirkpatrick <rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!
Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!
List pgsql-ports
Ryan Kirkpatrick <rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu> writes:
>     Ok, they are finally here.... This is an initial release to just
> the pgsql lists. If no one sees any problems with the below announcement
> or patches, I will then forward them on to the rest of the world (save for
> the RH pgsql packager, as I do not have his email address). Also, as
> others see fit, maybe the patches should be put on the FTP site, and maybe
> a small annoucement somewhere on the web site, so people can find the
> patches, even if they missed them on the mailing lists.

OK, after a *real* quick once-over, it certainly seems that 99% of the
bulk is changes for the fmgr interface problem (although it looks like
int32s were changed to Datum also?  Is that really needed on Alpha?)

I see a few hacks on time_t that I am worried about; those will almost
certainly cause problems for other architectures if not ifdef'd.

As I commented before, I would like to think about a different solution
to the fmgr problem for 6.6, so I'd like to hold off committing any of
these fmgr changes into the current tree until we have a consensus on
what the best approach is.  But we could commit them into the 6.5 branch
after sufficient testing.  That would be nice for PPC folks as well, as
I'll bet these changes would let them run with more than -O0 ...

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-ports by date:

Previous
From: Ryan Kirkpatrick
Date:
Subject: Re: Stable vs Current (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha)
Next
From: Michael J Schout
Date:
Subject: Re: [PORTS] HP-UX port