Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files
Date
Msg-id 15776.1548711462@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-01-28 13:02:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> It's not required by C99, it however is required by C11. But a lot of
>> compilers have allowed it as an extension for a long time (like before
>> C99), unless suppressed by some option.

> Hm, it's only in gcc 4.6, so that's probably too recent.

Yeah, I tried it with RHEL6's gcc 4.4.7, and it doesn't work
(and AFAICS there is no option that would make it work).  A lot
of the buildfarm is running compilers older than that.

I fear we're still 10 years away from being able to demand C11
support ...

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: backslash-dot quoting in COPY CSV