public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Niyas Sait <[email protected]>
Cc: Ian Lawrence Barwick <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 09:24:39 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<Y5e/[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
On 2023-05-08 Mo 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund<[email protected]> writes:
>> I don't really have feelings either way - but haven't we gone further and even
>> backpatched things like spinlock support for new arches in the past?
> Mmmm ... don't really think those cases were comparable. We weren't
> adding support for a whole new OS. Now, you might argue that Windows
> on arm64 will be just like Windows on x86_64, but I think the jury
> is still out on that. Microsoft was so Intel-only for so many years
> that I bet they've had to change quite a bit to make it go on ARM.
>
> Also, the cases of back-patched spinlock support that I can find
> in the last few years were pretty low-risk. I'll grant that
> c32fcac56 was a bit blue-sky because hardly anybody had RISC-V
> at that point, but by the same token anybody relying on it at the
> time would be dealing with a beta-grade OS too. On the other hand,
> 1c72d82c2 was immediately testable in the buildfarm, and f3bd00c01
> was importing code already verified by our OpenBSD packagers.
>
> As I said upthread, this seems like something to put in at the
> beginning of a dev cycle, not post-feature-freeze.
>
We will definitely want buildfarm support. I don't have such a machine
and am not likely to have one any time soon. I do run drongo and
fairywren on an EC2 instance, but AWS doesn't seem to have support for
Windows on ARM. Maybe it's available on Azure (maybe then some of our
colleagues working at Microsoft could arrange such a beast for me to set
up potential buildfarm animal, or else run one themselves.)
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (60+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox