Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files
Date: 2019-01-28 21:12:31
Message-ID: 20190128211231.7xtkq4lzlt44mmr2@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-01-28 13:02:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> It's not required by C99, it however is required by C11. But a lot of
> compilers have allowed it as an extension for a long time (like before
> C99), unless suppressed by some option. I think that's partially because
> C++ has allowed it for longer. I don't know how many of the BF
> compilers could be made to accept that - I'd be very suprised if yours couldn't.

Hm, it's only in gcc 4.6, so that's probably too recent.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-01-28 21:21:03 Re: INSTALL file
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2019-01-28 21:10:40 Re: Built-in connection pooler