Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On August 24, 2019 2:37:55 PM PDT, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I know it's the development branch. The question is whether this
>> breakage is something *they* ought to be fixing. If not, I'm
>> worried that we're too much in bed with implementation details
>> of LLVM that we shouldn't be depending on.
> Don't think so - it's a C++ standard feature in the version of the standard
> LLVM is based on. So it's pretty reasonable for them to drop their older
> backwards compatible function.
Whether it's reasonable or not doesn't really matter to my point.
We shouldn't be in the business of tracking multitudes of small
changes in LLVM, no matter whether they're individually "reasonable".
The more often this happens, the more concerned I am that we chose
the wrong semantic level to interface at.
regards, tom lane
