On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 10:20:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> > There are a bunch of (void *) casts in the code that don't make sense to
> > me. I think some of these were once necessary because char * was used
> > in place of void * for some function arguments. And some of these were
> > probably just copied around without further thought. I went through and
> > cleaned up most of these. I didn't find any redeeming value in these.
> > They are just liable to hide actual problems such as incompatible types.
> > But maybe there are other opinions.
>
> I don't recall details, but I'm fairly sure some of these prevented
> compiler warnings on some (old?) compilers. Hard to be sure if said
> compilers are all gone.
>
> Looking at the sheer size of the patch, I'm kind of -0.1, just
> because I'm afraid it's going to create back-patching gotchas.
> I don't really find that it's improving readability, though
> clearly that's a matter of opinion.
I kind of liked the patch in terms of simplifying things.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means
"Am I going to die soon?"
