| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Anthony Roberts <anthony(dot)roberts(at)linaro(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Holmes <mike(dot)holmes(at)linaro(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Lina Iyer <lina(dot)iyer(at)linaro(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |
| Date: | 2023-09-13 19:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | 69a26a2a-feaa-43c0-bed3-0f5c2b569a28@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 buildfarm coverage.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2023-09-13 19:30:45 | Re: RFC: pg_stat_logmsg |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-09-13 19:10:30 | Re: BufferUsage counters' values have changed |