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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files
Date
Msg-id 20190128211231.7xtkq4lzlt44mmr2@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

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. I think that's partially because
> C++ has allowed it for longer.  I don't know how many of the BF
> compilers could be made to accept that - I'd be very suprised if yours couldn't.

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

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Built-in connection pooler
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: INSTALL file