From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++ |
Date: | 2020-03-23 04:22:48 |
Message-ID: | 18438.1584937368@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 07:22:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we should just revert b7f64c64d instead of putting more time
>> into this. It's looking like we're going to end up with four or so
>> implementations no matter what, so it's getting hard to see any
>> real benefit.
> Indeed. I have tried a couple of other things I could think of, but I
> cannot really get down to 3 implementations, so there is no actual
> benefit.
> I have done a complete revert to keep the history cleaner for release
> notes and such, including this part:
> - * On recent C++ compilers, we can use standard static_assert().
> Don't you think that we should keep this comment at the end? It is
> still true.
Yeah, the comment needs an update; but if we have four implementations
then it ought to describe each of them, IMO.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-23 04:58:51 | Re: type of some table storage params on doc |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-23 03:58:04 | Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++ |