On 11/29/17 00:35, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Meh. We support ancient versions of C for backwards compatibility >>> reasons, but considering that compiling backend code with C++ isn't >>> officially supported at all, I'm not sure we need to cater to ancient >>> C++ compilers. We could quibble about the value of "ancient" of >>> course --- Peter, do you have an idea when this construct became >>> widely supported? >>> >>> I do think it might be a better idea to put a #error there instead >>> of silently disabling static assertions. Then at least we could >>> hope to get complaints if anyone *is* trying to use ancient C++, >>> and thereby gauge whether it's worth working any harder for this. >> >> I guess my question was whether we couldn't just use the same >> workaround we use for old C compilers. > > This got unanswered and the thread has stalled for two months, so for > now I am marking the patch as returned with feedback.
The answer to that question is "because it doesn't work". I'd still like a review of this patch. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
