Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-11-24T19:15:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Remove no longer needed casts from Pointer
- e158fd4d68f4 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Remove no longer needed casts to Pointer
- c6be3daa054a 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Change Pointer to void *
- 1b2bb5077e9e 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Don't rely on pointer arithmetic with Pointer type
- 756a43689324 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Use more appropriate DatumGet* function
- 8c6bbd674ed8 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Remove useless casts to Pointer
- 623801b3bdb4 19 (unreleased) landed
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? regards, tom lane