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.
regards, tom lane