From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files
In-reply-to: <20190128211231.7xtkq4lzlt44mmr2@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <11460.1548706639@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190128203229.yreabsq6kinxdnh5@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <13179.1548708622@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190128210211.4is52ckj2voz2bdl@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20190128211231.7xtkq4lzlt44mmr2@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:12:31 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15775.1548711462.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:37:42 -0500
Message-ID: <15776.1548711462@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-01-28 13:02:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> It's not required by C99, it however is required by C11. But a lot of
>> compilers have allowed it as an extension for a long time (like before
>> C99), unless suppressed by some option.

> Hm, it's only in gcc 4.6, so that's probably too recent.

Yeah, I tried it with RHEL6's gcc 4.4.7, and it doesn't work
(and AFAICS there is no option that would make it work).  A lot
of the buildfarm is running compilers older than that.

I fear we're still 10 years away from being able to demand C11
support ...

			regards, tom lane