Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 1:46 PM David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The GIN code makes use of pointer but src/backend/access/gin only has 29
>>> occurrences. If you like I can help out fixing up the GIN code and share
>>> a page here. Let me know.
>
>> I'd go for it! I mean, who knows whether your patch will be accepted?
>> But another pair of eyes couldn't hurt. It seems like we all agree
>> that a full removal of Pointer would be better than a partial removal;
>> it's just a question of whether we can get there without too much
>> other awkwardness.
>
> If there are actually places in GIN where using void* would be less
> readable than using Pointer, that would certainly be interesting
> information.  Perhaps the patch would need to spend some effort
> on adding comments, not just mechanically replacing the typedef?

I got curious and did the replacement, and IMO there's no need for any
further commentary than what's already there.  I did however take the
opportunity to get rid of some pointless casts (except the return value
of PG_GETARG_POINTER(), which seems to be de rigueur to redundantly
cast), and to convert a nearby char * that's only used for memcpy() to
void *.

- ilmari