MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAGECzQR21OnnKiZO_1rLWO0-16kg1JBxnVq-wymYW0-_1cUNtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4d8b9e53-3f37-43f0-a4aa-5bda9c7961b3@eisentraut.org>
 <DFEUMBSUG8KA.XGY0CN9PFPR2@jeltef.nl>
 <DFKV26A4CHG2.CB7NJ1X62BKH@jeltef.nl>
 <fd1a4790-4fbc-43b4-a385-e3b98b9ed04d@eisentraut.org>
 <DFQYWIJD4L1J.3HQFOWSWKLFOR@jeltef.nl>
 <4e82f77b-acad-4356-94f6-8255135fb36b@eisentraut.org>
 <DFXOG2P1QMS8.3L7MCAL0E6MVJ@jeltef.nl>
 <ztktlrqatfj4roqhdjurccb3b4mf5hrycybfrzwupt4xmbwjt4@alrtyxhz5sns>
 <DFXV193BOBQ8.1BY2PK8YRJ9O1@jeltef.nl>
 <2h2n2gyw2f4ucicbl3drtdkjt2wzf6b2r4wqm7xwks6vpx5j7n@imymv4hkz5jz>
 <DGDRHFD14I7Z.30DSV2XVI6V93@jeltef.nl>
 <5291d173-1227-4619-b8fd-62336ad292b3@eisentraut.org>
 <CAGECzQSB=rBZ2n1WeCRAQ09xHzHSpyVBk-+NWEAcLsegsRXPzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6dff90f6-2afb-44a3-9524-b017924d71da@eisentraut.org>
 <DHFMW63NP35Z.3RRS8PIYV508K@jeltef.nl>
 <7ddb8894-3939-4846-8d7f-d886b2cb42ab@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: <7ddb8894-3939-4846-8d7f-d886b2cb42ab@eisentraut.org>
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:09:59 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAGECzQRauVYN19Y-DTiCTCkdNabh+ZqhdaLrUHR6CAU4wm2TFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Make copyObject work in C++
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGECzQRauVYN19Y-DTiCTCkdNabh%2BZqhdaLrUHR6CAU4wm2TFQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 at 10:33, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> Hmm, note that C++ is also used for LLVM/JIT, and by requiring this
> additional feature set we are also imposing new requirements for those
> users.  This has not been fully explored, and I hesitate to add such a
> new requirement at the last moment.

I understand the hesitation, but in practice we already impose those
requirements anyway for non-MSVC compilers because test_cplusplusext
doesn't compile without it. So any compiler that would cause problems
with the new featureset would have already complained about that
before.

> But how about this: We add the feature test that you propose and enable
> the extension based on that.  See attached patch.  This reduces to
> essentially a three-line patch, much simpler than all previous proposals.

If you're still worried, then this sounds like a fine middle-ground
for now. I think we should reconsider adding the automatic /std:c++20
flag for the PG20 dev cycle though.