Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date
Msg-id CAHyXU0wVbujf0RmNHFgH-CfYH2VjTQpUsew6VQD9nhMMqEv78A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During the 9.5 cycle, and earlier, the topic of increasing our minimum
> bar for compilers came up a bunch of times. Specifically whether we
> still should continue to use C90 as a baseline.

Minor question: is there any value to keeping the client side code to
older standards?  On a previous project compiled libpq on many legacy
architectures because we were using it as frontend to backup software.
The project didn't end up taking off so it's no big deal to me, but
just throwing it out there: libpq has traditionally enjoyed broader
compiler support than the full project (borland, windows back in the
day).

merlin



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: what would tar file FDW look like?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error message with plpgsql CONTINUE