| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ |
| Date: | 2017-11-29 21:39:14 |
| Message-ID: | 24877.1511991554@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-11-29 09:41:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> +/* not worth providing a workaround */
> FWIW, I think that's a perfectly reasonable choice. Adding complications
> in making static assertions work for random archaic compilers when
> compiling with c++ just doesn't seem worth more than a few mins of
> thought.
I don't think anyone is advocating that we need to develop a solution
that works, at least not pending somebody actually complaining that
they want to build PG with an ancient C++ compiler. I just want
"we don't support this" to be spelled "#error", rather than dumping off
a load of reasoning about what might happen without functioning static
asserts --- on a weird compiler, no less --- onto our future selves.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-11-29 21:55:37 | Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-29 20:28:52 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |