Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++
Date: 2020-03-23 04:22:48
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 07:22:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we should just revert b7f64c64d instead of putting more time
>> into this. It's looking like we're going to end up with four or so
>> implementations no matter what, so it's getting hard to see any
>> real benefit.

> Indeed. I have tried a couple of other things I could think of, but I
> cannot really get down to 3 implementations, so there is no actual
> benefit.
> I have done a complete revert to keep the history cleaner for release
> notes and such, including this part:
> - * On recent C++ compilers, we can use standard static_assert().
> Don't you think that we should keep this comment at the end? It is
> still true.

Yeah, the comment needs an update; but if we have four implementations
then it ought to describe each of them, IMO.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-03-23 04:58:51 Re: type of some table storage params on doc
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-03-23 03:58:04 Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++