Hi,
On 2019-05-23 14:05:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2019-05-23 13:46:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not really excited about adopting a position that PG will only
> >> build on GCC and clones thereof.
>
> > That's not what I said though? Not supporting one compiler, on an OS
> > that's effectively not being developed anymore, with a pretty
> > indefensible behaviour, requiring not insignificant work by everyone,
> > isn't the same as standardizing on gcc. I mean, we obviously are going
> > to continue at the absolute very least gcc, llvm/clang and msvc.
>
> I think you're vastly overstating the case for refusing support for this.
> Adding "#ifndef FRONTEND" to relevant headers isn't a huge amount of work
> --- it's certainly far less of a problem than the Microsoft-droppings
> we've had to put in in so many places. The only real issue in my mind
> is the lack of buildfarm support for detecting that we need to do so.
Well, doing it for every single inline function is pretty annoying, just
from a bulkiness perspective. And figuring out exactly which inline
function needs this isn't easy without something that actually shows the
problem.
> Also relevant here is that you have no evidence for the assumption that
> these old Solaris compilers are the only live platform with the problem.
> Yeah, we wish our buildfarm covered everything of interest, but it does
> not. Maybe, if we get to beta2 without any additional reports of build
> failures on beta1, that would be a bit of evidence that nobody else cares
> --- but we have no such evidence right now. We certainly can't assume
> that any pre-v12 release provides evidence of that, because up till
> I retired pademelon, it was forcing us to keep this case supported.
I don't think I'm advocating for not fixing the issue we had for
solaris, for 12. I just don't think this a reasonable approach going
forward.
Greetings,
Andres Freund