public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Anthony Roberts <[email protected]>
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Holmes <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Lina Iyer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 13:35:17 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<ZOh/[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAC1bJ48DeG+nZQ3iYvOwjtwz+yOU4o8yTO25csH6eiL2U-n8nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Hi,

This was covered earlier in the thread - I have taken this on in Niyas' 
stead.

Was there an explicit request for something there? I was under the 
impression that this was all just suggestion/theory at the moment.

Thanks,
Anthony

On 19/09/2023 09:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 14.09.23 11:39, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 13 Sep 2023, at 21:12, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> The author's email is bouncing now, due to job change, so it's 
> unlikely we will see any progress on this anymore.  I am setting it to 
> returned with feedback.
>

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]
  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