Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> As discussed in
>> <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7775.1492448...@sss.pgh.pa.us>, a
>> more general solution would be to add specific C++ support for static
>> assertions in c.h. Here is a patch for that, extracted from my
>> previously posted C++ patch set, but also a bit reworked from what was
>> previously posted.
> I like the concept of being more C++-compatible, but I'm not sure
> about the idea of not providing a workaround,
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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
