| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ |
| Date: | 2017-11-29 21:55:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20171129215537.72ld3tol7xfeavjw@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-11-29 16:39:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-29 22:15:24 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-29 21:39:14 | Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ |