From: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: removing old ports and architectures |
Date: | 2013-10-18 17:26:18 |
Message-ID: | CA+CSw_twAxGap4TnFLLTMBDM+DjKG-C6J+ivTSgEp7vDr+knEA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>> FWIW, I think that if we approach coding lock free algorithms
>> correctly - i.e. "which memory barriers can we avoid while being
>> safe", instead of "which memory barriers we need to add to become
>> safe" - then supporting Alpha isn't a huge amount of extra work.
>
> Alpha is completely irrelevant, so I would not like to expend the
> tiniest effort on supporting it. If there is someone using a very much
> legacy architecture like this, I doubt that even they will appreciate
> the ability to upgrade to the latest major version.
It's mostly irrelevant and I wouldn't shed a tear for Alpha support,
but I'd like to point out that it's a whole lot less irrelevant than
some of the architectures being discussed here. The latest Alpha
machines were sold only 6 years ago and supported up to 512GB of
memory with 64 1.3 GHz cores, something that can run a very reasonable
database load even today.
Regards,
Ants Aasma
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-10-18 17:45:40 | Re: removing old ports and architectures |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-18 17:12:31 | Re: removing old ports and architectures |