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.
regards, tom lane
