| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: typedef struct LogicalDecodingContext |
| Date: | 2023-03-02 10:49:17 |
| Message-ID: | fc5cf5fb-b1c6-c874-0907-1a459781bbd9@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02.03.23 03:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Apparently, not all C99 compilers can be assumed to work using the
>> strict C99 rules.
>
> While googling this issue I came across a statement that clang currently
> defaults to C17 rules. Even relatively old compilers might default to
> C11. But considering how long we held on to C89, I doubt we'll want
> to move the project minimum to C11 for some years yet.
We need to wait until we de-support Visual Studio older then 2019.
(Current minimum is 2015 (changed from 2013 for PG16).)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2023-03-02 10:50:56 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-02 10:45:31 | Re: typedef struct LogicalDecodingContext |