Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2020-03-13 06:12:34
Message-ID: 20200313061234.GA120686@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:43:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't feel a need to expend a whole lot of sweat there. The existing
> text is fine, it just bugged me that the code deals with three cases
> while the comment block only acknowledged two. So I'd just go with
> what you have in v3.

Thanks, Tom. I have committed v3 then.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com 2020-03-13 06:35:48 RE: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2020-03-13 06:08:12 Re: [PATCH] Skip llvm bytecode generation if LLVM is missing