From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>,
 cary huang <hcary328@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Add support for AT LOCAL
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+hUKG+SYQ+MOXxt-bZhj2HzJXFADVW63UsF6xf504Y_bxx+og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ZSyYqySa74x_RAH_@paquier.xyz>
 <CA+hUKGLYaVJ7df+Uu=ctUunRcqUsGY55feVQa-1pzz1=PT=z3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <2188264.1697425365@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGJSEOVonGsYCiuhZXsBFCxXtjNyHGYvn-w9jykGo2PgqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2191749.1697427017@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20231016045804.c0@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20231016055051.3a@rfd.leadboat.com> <2208907.1697435663@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20231016060510.72@rfd.leadboat.com> <2659915.1697521218@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ZS4oykeg1ydoTM0W@paquier.xyz> <2726901.1697556666@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <2820407.1697561128@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGKdDBrh4PnW6Bw67wUmVHVzJMKH-3rK25NJg9nD9vUndg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2995973.1697583273@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+SYQ+MOXxt-bZhj2HzJXFADVW63UsF6xf504Y_bxx+og@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:11:35 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <3001170.1697585525.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:32:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3001171.1697585525@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3001171.1697585525%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Should we be testing against xlclang instead?

> I hesitated to suggest it because it's not my animal/time we're
> talking about but it seems to make more sense.  It appears to be IBM's
> answer to the nothing-builds-with-this-thing phenomenon, since it
> accepts a lot of GCCisms via Clang's adoption of them.  From a quick
> glance at [1], it lacks the atomics builtins but we have our own
> assembler magic for POWER.  So maybe it'd all just work™.

Discounting the Windows animals, it looks like the xlc animals are
our only remaining ones that use anything except gcc or clang.
That feels uncomfortably like a compiler monoculture to me, so
I can understand the reasoning for keeping hornet/mandrill going.
Still, maybe we should just accept the fact that gcc/clang have
outcompeted everything else in the C compiler universe.  It's
getting hard to imagine that anyone would bring out some new product
that didn't try to be bug-compatible with gcc, for precisely the
reason you mention.

			regards, tom lane