> On 13 Sep 2023, at 21:12, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 31.08.23 06:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree. I'm really uncomfortable with claiming support for
>> Windows-on-ARM if we don't have a buildfarm member testing it.
>> For other platforms that have a track record of multiple
>> hardware support, it might not be a stretch ... but Windows was
>> so resolutely Intel-only for so long that "it works on ARM" is
>> a proposition that I won't trust without hard evidence. There
>> are too many bits of that system that might not have gotten the
>> word yet, or at least not gotten sufficient testing.
>> My vote for this is we don't commit without a buildfarm member.
>
> I think we can have a multi-tiered approach, where we can commit support but consider it experimental until we have
buildfarmcoverage.
If it's experimental it should probably be behind an opt-in flag in
autoconf/meson, or be reverted by the time REL_17_STABLE branches unless
coverage has materialized by then.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
