Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaDQ9wHF0DPCaXDbec8v4eetXy1+3zFiX--kWUuhRBZ4w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I'd still like a review of this patch.

I don't think there's much to review apart from this one issue.
Neither Tom nor I seem to be convinced about:

+/* not worth providing a workaround */

I suggested that it was worth providing a workaround, and Tom
suggested that the case might be so rare that we could just #error if
happens.  If you agree that it's never likely to come up, I suggest
going with Tom's #error proposal; otherwise, I suggest trying to find
a workable workaround.

Apart from that, the only thing I see is that it seems like the
comment block just before your code changes might need some updating.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for largerconnection counts
Next
From: Victor Drobny
Date:
Subject: Re: new function for tsquery creartion