Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:49:08 -0700
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: buildfarm-members@lists.postgresql.org,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FullTransactionId changes are causing portability issues
Message-ID: <20190523184908.npsgqwzsskdsbhsq@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <27054.1558533367@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <6039.1558536488@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <11261.1558554950@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190522200312.kmh6qv3jbms7dtpx@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <12028.1558555982@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190523171134.vwsjumopzjnrgagn@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <17017.1558633575@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190523175231.qg7iq7tiucp2zgc2@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <18538.1558634719@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <18538.1558634719@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2019-05-23 14:05:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2019-05-23 13:46:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not really excited about adopting a position that PG will only
> >> build on GCC and clones thereof.
> 
> > That's not what I said though? Not supporting one compiler, on an OS
> > that's effectively not being developed anymore, with a pretty
> > indefensible behaviour, requiring not insignificant work by everyone,
> > isn't the same as standardizing on gcc. I mean, we obviously are going
> > to continue at the absolute very least gcc, llvm/clang and msvc.
> 
> I think you're vastly overstating the case for refusing support for this.
> Adding "#ifndef FRONTEND" to relevant headers isn't a huge amount of work
> --- it's certainly far less of a problem than the Microsoft-droppings
> we've had to put in in so many places.  The only real issue in my mind
> is the lack of buildfarm support for detecting that we need to do so.

Well, doing it for every single inline function is pretty annoying, just
from a bulkiness perspective. And figuring out exactly which inline
function needs this isn't easy without something that actually shows the
problem.


> Also relevant here is that you have no evidence for the assumption that
> these old Solaris compilers are the only live platform with the problem.
> Yeah, we wish our buildfarm covered everything of interest, but it does
> not.  Maybe, if we get to beta2 without any additional reports of build
> failures on beta1, that would be a bit of evidence that nobody else cares
> --- but we have no such evidence right now.  We certainly can't assume
> that any pre-v12 release provides evidence of that, because up till
> I retired pademelon, it was forcing us to keep this case supported.

I don't think I'm advocating for not fixing the issue we had for
solaris, for 12. I just don't think this a reasonable approach going
forward.

Greetings,

Andres Freund