On 2014-06-24 10:22:08 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@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?
I'd actually be willing to bet a fair amount of money that it already is
broken. Especially in combination with an aggressively optimizing
compiler.
Then let's do that.
> 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.
Yea.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
