On 2017-11-29 16:39:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2017-11-29 09:41:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> +/* not worth providing a workaround */
>
> > 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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund