Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly
| От | Chao Li |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 8B037F29-163E-4446-BA94-7553C9ECA0F1@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly (David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly
Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Dec 8, 2025, at 18:25, David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter, >> I went with your proposal of GinExtraPointer. See attached patch. It's >> based on the series of patches from Peter's initial mail. I've included >> the removal of the Pointer typedef in the same patch. > > It seems to me that we reached agreement. Are you planning to still > apply these patches? > Basically I am not against this patch, as 756a43689324b473ee07549a6eb7a53a203df5ad has done similar changes. What I want to understand is that why do we delete Pointer and add GinExtraPointer? ``` -/* - * Pointer - * Variable holding address of any memory resident object. - * (obsolescent; use void * or char *) - */ -typedef void *Pointer; ``` And ``` +typedef void *GinExtraPointer; ``` They both are underlying “void *”. Are we expecting to improve code readability? More specific maybe? Best regards, -- Chao Li (Evan) HighGo Software Co., Ltd. https://www.highgo.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: