Re: AIX support

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Sriram RK <sriram.rk@outlook.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "tvk1271@gmail.com" <tvk1271@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Date: 2024-04-25T04:45:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Restore AIX support.

  2. pg_createsubscriber: Improve error messages.

  3. Use <stdint.h> and <inttypes.h> for c.h integers.

  4. Stabilize jsonb_path_query test case.

  5. Fix C23 compiler warning

  6. pg_stat_statements: Add tests for nested queries with level tracking

  7. Add missing newline at the end of index_including.sql

  8. Remove AIX support

  9. Fix s_lock.h PPC assembly code to be compatible with native AIX assembler.

  10. Use a non-locking initial test in TAS_SPIN on PPC.

  11. Use LWSYNC in place of SYNC/ISYNC in PPC spinlocks, where possible.

  12. Use mutex hint bit in PPC LWARX instructions, where possible.

  13. Adjust TAS assembly as per recent discussions: use "+m"(*lock) everywhere

  14. Apple's assembler likes the inlined TAS syntax too, so no reason to

  15. Tighten up register usage for inline PPC version of tas().

  16. Put the isync where it's supposed to be.

  17. > > I'll re-check that with the ppc architecture guy here.

  18. Fix PPC s_lock operations to work correctly on multi-CPU machines.

  19. I tried to build PostgreSQL with the following step to see backends hung

  20. Complete merge of all old man page information.

  21. s_lock aix patch.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:20:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Sriram mentioned upthread that he was looking at both of them.  I'd be
ready to assume that most of the interest is in xlc, not gcc.  But I
may be wrong.

Saying that, dividing the effort into more successive steps is
sensible here (didn't consider that previously, you have a good
point).
--
Michael