Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, YANG Xudong <yangxudong(at)ymatrix(dot)cn>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, wengyanqing(at)ymatrix(dot)cn, wanghao(at)ymatrix(dot)cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.
Date: 2023-07-26 04:37:07
Message-ID: 20230726043707.GB3211130@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 12:16:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 02:11:02PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
>> Before I look at this again: Are there any objections to another CRC
>> implementation for the reason of having no buildfarm member?
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Anyway, based on today's state of the buildfarm, we have a buildfarm
> member named cisticola that should be able to test this new CRC
> implementation, so I see no problem in applying this stuff now if you
> think it is in good shape.

IMHO we should strive to maintain buildfarm coverage for all the
instrinsics used within Postgres, if for no other reason than to ensure
future changes do not break those platforms.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2023-07-26 04:40:25 Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-07-26 04:22:22 Re: psql: Could we get "-- " prefixing on the **** QUERY **** outputs? (ECHO_HIDDEN)