Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support

Hi,

This was covered earlier in the thread - I have taken this on in Niyas'
stead.

Was there an explicit request for something there? I was under the
impression that this was all just suggestion/theory at the moment.

Thanks,
Anthony

On 19/09/2023 09:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 14.09.23 11:39, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 13 Sep 2023, at 21:12, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)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 buildfarm coverage.
>>
>> 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.
>
> The author's email is bouncing now, due to job change, so it's
> unlikely we will see any progress on this anymore.  I am setting it to
> returned with feedback.
>