Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-06-24 13:03:37 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> If a change has the potential to make some architectures give wrong
>> answers only at odd times, that's a different kind of problem.  For
>> that reason, actively breaking Alpha is a good thing.

> Not sure what you mean with the 'actively breaking Alpha' statement?
> That we should drop Alpha?

+1.  Especially with no buildfarm critter.  Would anyone here care
to bet even the price of a burger that Alpha isn't broken already?

Even if we *had* an Alpha in the buildfarm, I'd have pretty small
confidence in whether our code really worked on it.  The buildfarm
tests just don't stress heavily-concurrent behavior enough.
        regards, tom lane