On 2018-11-13 00:01:49 +0100, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 02:57:37PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2018-11-12 23:51:35 +0100, David Fetter wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:01:33AM +1300, David Rowley wrote: > > > > On 13 November 2018 at 10:39, Thomas Munro > > > > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > > ... and it has just been voted into the next revision of the C > > > > > language: > > > > > > > > > > https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/c2x/ > > > > > > > > Nice. Maybe we can get DECFLOAT into core around PostgreSQL 32 or so > > > > :-) > > > > > > That's the same schedule we were on for C99, assuming linearity. If > > > instead we assume that the speed increases with, say, more developers, > > > it seems reasonable to imagine that we'd have optional C2X features in > > > PostgreSQL 14 or 15, assuming support for it in at least two common > > > compiler toolchains ;) > > > > I don't think developer time is particularly relevant here. C99 adoption > > wasn't limited by somebody doing the work to make it so, but the desire > > to support some old platforms. I'm personally perfectly fine with being > > more aggressive around that, but there are some other quarters that are > > more resistant to such ideas... But even if we're more aggressive, 15 > > seems quite unrealistic - there'll be a lot of platforms that won't have > > a bleeding edge version of $compiler. > > So if this got added to a lot of compilers, that might suffice.
No, unless those compiler versions will automatically be available in older distros. Which they won't. > Does this have any coupling to the C++ integration, or is it pretty > much orthogonal? Seems largely orthogonal. Greetings, Andres Freund
