Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.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