Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 07:22:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we should just revert b7f64c64d instead of putting more time
>> into this. It's looking like we're going to end up with four or so
>> implementations no matter what, so it's getting hard to see any
>> real benefit.
> Indeed. I have tried a couple of other things I could think of, but I
> cannot really get down to 3 implementations, so there is no actual
> benefit.
> I have done a complete revert to keep the history cleaner for release
> notes and such, including this part:
> - * On recent C++ compilers, we can use standard static_assert().
> Don't you think that we should keep this comment at the end? It is
> still true.
Yeah, the comment needs an update; but if we have four implementations
then it ought to describe each of them, IMO.
regards, tom lane
