On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
