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.