On 06/25/2014 01:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John Klos <john@ziaspace.com> wrote:
>>> While I wouldn't be surprised if you remove the VAX code because not many
>>> people are going to be running PostgreSQL, I'd disagree with the assessment
>>> that this port is broken. It compiles, it initializes databases, it runs, et
>>> cetera, albeit not with the default postgresql.conf.
>
>> Well, the fact that initdb didn't produce a working configuration and
>> that make installcheck failed to work properly are bad. But, yeah,
>> it's not totally broken.
>
>>> I'm actually rather impressed at how well PostgreSQL can be adjusted to
>>> lower memory systems. I deploy a lot of embedded systems with 128 megs (a
>>> lot for an embedded system, but nothing compared with what everyone else
>>> assumes), so I'll be checking out PostgreSQL for other uses.
>
>> I agree, that's cool.
>
> I think we'd be happy to keep the VAX port of PG going as long as we
> get regular feedback on it, ie closed-loop maintenance not open-loop ;-)
>
> Is there anyone in the NetBSD/VAX community who would be willing to
> host a PG buildfarm member?
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/index.html
>
> The requirements for this beyond what it takes to build from source
> are basically just working git and Perl (ccache helps a lot too),
> and enough cycles to build the code at least once a day or so.
> Once you've got the thing set up it seldom needs human attention.
>
> If we had a buildfarm member to tell us when we break things, it
> would be a lot easier to promise continued support.
I could put together a simh-based machine (i.e., fast) on a vm, if
nobody else has stepped up for this.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ/3
New Kensington, PA
