Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.3\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
In-Reply-To: <69a26a2a-feaa-43c0-bed3-0f5c2b569a28@eisentraut.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 11:39:20 +0200
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Anthony Roberts <anthony.roberts@linaro.org>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
 Mike Holmes <mike.holmes@linaro.org>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E9BEB24C-1F04-49BD-B70C-132C1ADF962C@yesql.se>
References: <00b0804c-3e5d-22b5-c7dd-3efe6d43d78d@dunslane.net>
 <ZFwqBTSHVkGGyAyJ@paquier.xyz>
 <b3d2540e-3fdd-6184-35bd-83e84b0da5a9@linaro.org>
 <c03799fe-78ab-d1b9-35a8-9f1e28563d18@linaro.org>
 <6d533c8f-9158-33e2-d476-f15bc4e055f1@linaro.org>
 <ZN6e9KGtu+X63HQe@paquier.xyz>
 <219d1120-f383-6e63-1954-b3c0ebefa61c@linaro.org>
 <ZOh/t+7RJibPBHqh@paquier.xyz>
 <80542823-5318-12e9-d306-5bbe35a689b1@linaro.org>
 <CAC1bJ48DeG+nZQ3iYvOwjtwz+yOU4o8yTO25csH6eiL2U-n8nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZPAVeOg38GIvl2l2@paquier.xyz> <305608.1693457047@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <69a26a2a-feaa-43c0-bed3-0f5c2b569a28@eisentraut.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E9BEB24C-1F04-49BD-B70C-132C1ADF962C%40yesql.se>
Precedence: bulk

> On 13 Sep 2023, at 21:12, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 31.08.23 06:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree.  I'm really uncomfortable with claiming support for
>> Windows-on-ARM if we don't have a buildfarm member testing it.
>> For other platforms that have a track record of multiple
>> hardware support, it might not be a stretch ... but Windows was
>> so resolutely Intel-only for so long that "it works on ARM" is
>> a proposition that I won't trust without hard evidence.  There
>> are too many bits of that system that might not have gotten the
>> word yet, or at least not gotten sufficient testing.
>> My vote for this is we don't commit without a buildfarm member.
>=20
> I think we can have a multi-tiered approach, where we can commit =
support but consider it experimental until we have buildfarm coverage.

If it's experimental it should probably be behind an opt-in flag in
autoconf/meson, or be reverted by the time REL_17_STABLE branches unless
coverage has materialized by then.

--
Daniel Gustafsson