From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Sriram RK <sriram.rk@outlook.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        "tvk1271@gmail.com" <tvk1271@gmail.com>,
        Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: AIX support
In-reply-to: <ZinWwJPbIoG9uywQ@paquier.xyz>
References: <CA+hUKG+7_ON7hd_oB6YjD4Tx23wL4E1UBSWg6C+O1brMgDB58A@mail.gmail.com> <3847604.1711683217@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CY5PR11MB63921A88005AAE45137A362DFD032@CY5PR11MB6392.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20240405172649.d1@rfd.leadboat.com> <CY5PR11MB63921AB0242FAAC1B522DC38FD0E2@CY5PR11MB6392.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20240418180128.uzzgx4r6ujgrz2eo@awork3.anarazel.de> <CY5PR11MB6392180DFCCB9A68E5EDE862FD0D2@CY5PR11MB6392.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <6cc5001e-3001-438a-85fd-3bd2d9c2d8e4@eisentraut.org> <2476719.1713630347@sss.pgh.pa.us> <ZinQeSfk5rOs49ha@momjian.us> <ZinWwJPbIoG9uywQ@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:06:24 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3829419.1714018805.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:20:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3829420.1714018805@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3829420.1714018805%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Some of the portability changes removed in 0b16bb877 feel indeed
> obsolete, so it may not hurt to start an analysis from scratch to see
> the minimum amount of work that would be really required with the
> latest versions of xlc, using the newest compilers as a supported
> base.

Something I've been mulling over is whether to suggest that the
proposed "new port" should only target building with gcc.

On the one hand, that would (I think) remove a number of annoying
issues, and the average end user is unlikely to care which compiler
their database server was built with.  On the other hand, I'm a strong
proponent of avoiding software monocultures, and xlc is one of the few
C compilers still standing that aren't gcc or clang.

It would definitely make sense for a new port to start by getting
things going with gcc only, and then look at resurrecting xlc
support.

> I'd like to think backporting these to stable branches should
> be OK at some point, once the new port is proving baked enough.

If things go as I expect, the "new port" would effectively drop
support for older AIX and/or older compiler versions.  So back-
porting seems like an unlikely decision.

> Anyway, getting an access to such compilers to be able to debug issues
> on hosts that take less than 12h to just compile the code would
> certainly help its adoption.

+many

			regards, tom lane