Re: AIX support
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Restore AIX support.
- 4a1b05caa55d 19 (unreleased) landed
-
pg_createsubscriber: Improve error messages.
- 898c131b58a0 18.0 cited
-
Use <stdint.h> and <inttypes.h> for c.h integers.
- 962da900ac8f 18.0 cited
-
Stabilize jsonb_path_query test case.
- af2115226831 18.0 cited
-
Fix C23 compiler warning
- d2b4b4c2259e 18.0 cited
-
pg_stat_statements: Add tests for nested queries with level tracking
- 45e0ba30fc40 18.0 cited
-
Add missing newline at the end of index_including.sql
- 54b69f1bd730 17.0 cited
-
Remove AIX support
- 0b16bb8776bb 17.0 cited
-
Fix s_lock.h PPC assembly code to be compatible with native AIX assembler.
- c41a1215f049 9.6.0 cited
-
Use a non-locking initial test in TAS_SPIN on PPC.
- bc2a050d4097 9.2.0 cited
-
Use LWSYNC in place of SYNC/ISYNC in PPC spinlocks, where possible.
- 631beeac3598 9.2.0 cited
-
Use mutex hint bit in PPC LWARX instructions, where possible.
- 5cfa8dd3007d 9.2.0 cited
-
Adjust TAS assembly as per recent discussions: use "+m"(*lock) everywhere
- 109867748259 8.0.0 cited
-
Apple's assembler likes the inlined TAS syntax too, so no reason to
- f9ba0a7fe563 7.4.1 cited
-
Tighten up register usage for inline PPC version of tas().
- eb5e4c58d137 7.4.1 cited
-
Put the isync where it's supposed to be.
- cd35d601b859 7.4.1 cited
-
> > I'll re-check that with the ppc architecture guy here.
- ceb4f5ea9c2c 7.4.1 cited
-
Fix PPC s_lock operations to work correctly on multi-CPU machines.
- 7233aae50bea 7.3.1 cited
-
I tried to build PostgreSQL with the following step to see backends hung
- 50938576d482 7.3.1 cited
-
Complete merge of all old man page information.
- f2f43efbe1d5 7.1.1 cited
-
s_lock aix patch.
- e3b06a871b63 7.1.1 cited
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