From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Niyas Sait <niyas.sait@linaro.org>,
        Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        robhenry@microsoft.com, "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
In-reply-to: <20230508191731.mtt3mpgrr6v2br7t@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <Y419yaW1Q1uoXbtY@paquier.xyz> <20221205181449.47mhosidtmotemdl@awork3.anarazel.de> <6cfaaf3c-7fb5-51c8-92cf-ceac6303ef66@linaro.org> <Y5e/sWhwW+sMgVVh@paquier.xyz> <c1234f7e-e484-04a9-be2b-26db71f54af2@linaro.org> <20230117225131.jeptl4axjlbk5glz@awork3.anarazel.de> <44f6c1b6-d712-b69b-82f2-8c525f59aeff@linaro.org> <dbee741f-b9b7-a0d5-1b1b-f9b532bb6f56@linaro.org> <ZFXE4iLXekbgvhqj@paquier.xyz> <3864856.1683347740@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20230508191731.mtt3mpgrr6v2br7t@awork3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 08 May 2023 12:17:31 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <461477.1683575921.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 15:58:41 -0400
Message-ID: <461478.1683575921@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/461478.1683575921%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I don't really have feelings either way - but haven't we gone further an=
d 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.

			regards, tom lane