On 2018-11-13 00:01:49 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 02:57:37PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018-11-12 23:51:35 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:01:33AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > > > On 13 November 2018 at 10:39, Thomas Munro
> > > > <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > > > > ... and it has just been voted into the next revision of the C language:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/c2x/
> > > >
> > > > Nice. Maybe we can get DECFLOAT into core around PostgreSQL 32 or so :-)
> > >
> > > That's the same schedule we were on for C99, assuming linearity. If
> > > instead we assume that the speed increases with, say, more developers,
> > > it seems reasonable to imagine that we'd have optional C2X features in
> > > PostgreSQL 14 or 15, assuming support for it in at least two common
> > > compiler toolchains ;)
> >
> > I don't think developer time is particularly relevant here. C99 adoption
> > wasn't limited by somebody doing the work to make it so, but the desire
> > to support some old platforms. I'm personally perfectly fine with being
> > more aggressive around that, but there are some other quarters that are
> > more resistant to such ideas... But even if we're more aggressive, 15
> > seems quite unrealistic - there'll be a lot of platforms that won't have
> > a bleeding edge version of $compiler.
>
> So if this got added to a lot of compilers, that might suffice.
No, unless those compiler versions will automatically be available in
older distros. Which they won't.
> Does this have any coupling to the C++ integration, or is it pretty
> much orthogonal?
Seems largely orthogonal.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
