On 11/29/17 00:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Meh. We support ancient versions of C for backwards compatibility
>>> reasons, but considering that compiling backend code with C++ isn't
>>> officially supported at all, I'm not sure we need to cater to ancient
>>> C++ compilers. We could quibble about the value of "ancient" of
>>> course --- Peter, do you have an idea when this construct became
>>> widely supported?
>>>
>>> I do think it might be a better idea to put a #error there instead
>>> of silently disabling static assertions. Then at least we could
>>> hope to get complaints if anyone *is* trying to use ancient C++,
>>> and thereby gauge whether it's worth working any harder for this.
>>
>> I guess my question was whether we couldn't just use the same
>> workaround we use for old C compilers.
>
> This got unanswered and the thread has stalled for two months, so for
> now I am marking the patch as returned with feedback.
The answer to that question is "because it doesn't work".
I'd still like a review of this patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
