On 20.01.26 16:03, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 12:16, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> So my proposal is that we wrap the appropriate attribute into a
>> pg_fallthrough macro, and replace the current comments with that.
>
> All looks okay to me. The only thing that stood out is that it checks
> for C++ with __cpp_attributes instead of __cplusplus. Is it really
> worth using this more specific attribute? Given that we're already
> requiring C++11 and afaict all C++11 compilers should support the
> general notion of attributes.
I agree. I will make that change.
