On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 07:09:08PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-06-24 13:03:37 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > What I'm hearing is that you see two options, (1) personally authoring
> > e.g. sparcv8 code or (2) purging the source tree of sparcv8 code before
> > submitting the patch that would otherwise change it. I favor middle ground
> > that lets minor platforms pay their own way. Write your changes with as
> > little effort as you wish toward whether they run on sparcv8. If they break
> > sparcv8, then either (a) that was okay, or (b) a user will show up with a
> > report and/or patch, and we'll deal with that.
>
> Sounds sensible to me. But we should document such platforms as not
> being officially supported in that case.
It is usually safe to make the documentation match the facts.
> > 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?
Yes:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZHgv_gowyFVCRYETihPWNTtK1DYeA-o3f5+puE3TweaQ@mail.gmail.com
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
