Re: remove dead ports? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: remove dead ports?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYnSaPJSmSv2LuJWGhNFPPo8S8KCPv8PMPrV5eJ=OmCOA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to remove dead ports?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: remove dead ports?  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Re: remove dead ports?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our
> source tree.  They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or
> probably no one remembers what they even were.  The code just bit rots
> and is in the way of future improvements.

I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough
to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it
if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are
applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct.  I'm
suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K,
Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX,
Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or
stuff I've never heard of.  I have no problem keeping whatever people
are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's
actually dead for the reasons you state.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.3: summary of corruption detection / checksums / CRCs discussion
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: New sync commit mode remote_write