Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-11-29 16:39:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
>>> 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.
Wait a minute --- you were just saying that only archaic C++ compilers
were at issue. You don't get to have that both ways.
regards, tom lane
