Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch?

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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.
>
>
+1 for dropping it.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>