Re: remove dead ports?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: remove dead ports? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYnSaPJSmSv2LuJWGhNFPPo8S8KCPv8PMPrV5eJ=OmCOA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | remove dead ports? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: remove dead ports?
Re: remove dead ports? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > I propose that we remove support for the following OS ports from our > source tree. They are totally dead, definitely don't work, and/or > probably no one remembers what they even were. The code just bit rots > and is in the way of future improvements. I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct. I'm suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K, Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX, Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or stuff I've never heard of. I have no problem keeping whatever people are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's actually dead for the reasons you state. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: