On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:36:38PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> You could argue that if it reduces the locations that need to be
> changed by using a typedef, then it's a win. But there are also
> negative aspects to typedefs that need to be considered. For me, those
> are the added level of indirection of code reading to actually who
> what type I'm working with. I personally dislike typedefs like
> "typedef PageHeaderData *PageHeader;" as they hide the fact I'm
> working with a pointer.
>
> I'm not outright objecting to the typedef for this. It's just I don't
> see it as a clear-cut improvement for this case.
Same opinion here. I am not quite clear what there is to gain in
hiding the query ID behind a typedef, or even apply that to the plan
ID.
I have added an open item about the plan ID part as it applies to v18,
adding the RMT in CC to get an opinion. If we cannot get a consensus
on all that, letting things as they are is still logically correct,
even with the -Wwarnings-format-signedness argument which is not
included by default currently.
Has somebody an opinion to offer?
--
Michael
