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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: remove dead ports?
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMKUtH15KeKd6z9YLAO80pcAo72PkQ5PhbpLpXsA+=a5hA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: remove dead ports?  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: remove dead ports?  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 13 September 2012 14:18, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:00:51AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> SGI support for IRIX ends in Dec 2013, following on from
>> discontinuation of hardware in 2006/7
>> http://www.sgi.com/services/support/irix_mips_support.html
>>
>> Which means 9.3 will not have an IRIX platform to run on for more than
>> a few months after release, so I think we should remove IRIX support
>> now.
>
>> Any objections to removing irix support now?
>
> While I wouldn't personally weep for its loss, I think it's premature.  The
> others Peter Eisentraut removed have been in the ground about a decade longer
> than IRIX.  In the absence of a specific reason to believe PostgreSQL no
> longer works on the platform or a notable maintenance benefit from removing
> its platform-specific source code, let's keep it awhile.

I agree.

I think we need an in-between status of
might-work-will-remove-if-it-doesnt. The key is not whether to remove
it, the key is whether the lack of support for certain features in an
old OS is sufficient to prevent forward progress of PostgreSQL.

IMHO, IRIX no longer rates extra effort, should it be required.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY
Next
From: "Albe Laurenz"
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables