On 25.01.26 18:52, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sun Jan 25, 2026 at 5:50 PM CET, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I'm pretty sceptical this is the right direction.
>
> The only other option I can think of is not supporting C++ extension on
> MSVC unless they are compiled with C++20 (or later). I don't
> particularly care about Windows C++ extensions myself, so I personally
> would be fine with that choice. It seems a bit harsh, though.
Maybe it would be enough to only support PG_MODULE_MAGIC (without
arguments) in C++ for now.
That would still require removing the named initializers inside
PG_MODULE_MAGIC_DATA(), but that's only an internal change, and it would
not affect C-language users of PG_MODULE_MAGIC_EXT, and we wouldn't lock
ourselves into a particular style in C++.
Then, maybe in a couple of years, when C++20 is more widely available,
we could enable PG_MODULE_MAGIC_EXT for C++, or design an alternative
construct for C++.
