Re: Confused static assertion implementation

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Confused static assertion implementation
Date: 2025-11-14 22:27:23
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLiHAPdQOqEAAWGZ0XNmPcdLrykUWsiADdDx+Fj0xGtww@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 6:18 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As you added a semi-colon in the line, the one after the empty line can be deleted, though C allows empty statement, but unnecessary, and may lead to confusion for code readers.

> You missed to replace this pgac_cv__static_assert with the new name.

Ugh, yeah, the configure change was hopeless. It looked like it
worked in configure's stdout, which I mistook for success and posted
too soon, sorry about that. I have fixed those points and verified
that pg_config.h actually has the expected value.

Thanks for the review!

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Refactor-static_assert-support.patch text/x-patch 10.7 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-11-14 22:31:29 Re: Issue with logical replication slot during switchover
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2025-11-14 22:13:42 Re: pgsql: Drop unnamed portal immediately after execution to completion