Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-11-29 16:39:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >>> FWIW, I think that's a perfectly reasonable choice. Adding complications >>> in making static assertions work for random archaic compilers when >>> compiling with c++ just doesn't seem worth more than a few mins of >>> thought.
>> I don't think anyone is advocating that we need to develop a solution >> that works, at least not pending somebody actually complaining that >> they want to build PG with an ancient C++ compiler. I just want >> "we don't support this" to be spelled "#error", rather than dumping off >> a load of reasoning about what might happen without functioning static >> asserts --- on a weird compiler, no less --- onto our future selves. > C++ static asserts are somewhat new (C++11), so I'm unconvinced by that. Wait a minute --- you were just saying that only archaic C++ compilers were at issue. You don't get to have that both ways. regards, tom lane