On 2017-11-29 16:39:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
C++ static asserts are somewhat new (C++11), so I'm unconvinced by that. Greetings, Andres Freund
