Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> I think this is significantly cleaner than what we have now, and I
> also prefer it to your proposal.
+1 in general. However, I suspect that you did not try to compile
this without --with-lz4, because if you had you'd have noticed the
other uses of NO_LZ4_SUPPORT() that you broke. I think you need
to leave that macro where it is. Also, it's not nice for GUC check
functions to throw ereport(ERROR); we prefer the caller to be able
to decide if it's a hard error or not. That usage should be using
GUC_check_errdetail() or a cousin, so it can't share the macro anyway.
regards, tom lane
