On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi, On 2018-03-23 14:54:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > So I see somebody at 2ndQ has set up a bunch of ppc64le buildfarm > members, which I applaud. But they're all failing on the 9.3 branch, > because we lack support for that architecture in that branch. > > Does anyone have the stomach for trying to add such support? The minimum > requirement would be to back-patch 9.4's config.guess and config.sub, > because that's where the builds are falling over right now. I wouldn't be > too afraid of that, but what is not clear is what portability issues might > be lurking beyond that. I could not find any specific mention of ppc64 > in the git changelogs, but that doesn't mean there weren't any other 9.4 > fixes that might need to be back-ported. > > It's hard to justify putting in very much effort to add new-platform > support in a branch that's scheduled to die in six months, so I'm not > sure what to do. Should we just tell 2ndQ not to bother running those > animals on 9.3? Or should we make at least a bit of effort towards > making it work?
> The compromise I'm inclined to offer is to see what happens if we > back-patch 9.4's config.guess and config.sub. If that makes these > animals go green, and doesn't break any others, we'll call it good. > Otherwise, we revert that change and say we're not putting any > additional effort into it.
I'm inclined to just ask them to stop running the animals on that branch. There are no pre-existing users on 9.3 ppc64le, and new customers hopefully won't move to 9.3. ISTM backpatching is riskier than just changing a bunch of buildfarm configurations.
