On 2020-07-07 18:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 2020-07-04 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm for a typedef. There is *nothing* readable about "(void (*) (void))",
>>> and the fact that it's theoretically incorrect for the purpose doesn't
>>> exactly aid intelligibility either. With a typedef, not only are
>>> the uses more readable but there's a place to put a comment explaining
>>> that this is notionally wrong but it's what gcc specifies to use
>>> to suppress thus-and-such warnings.
>
>> Makes sense. New patch here.
>
> I don't have a compiler handy that emits these warnings, but this
> passes an eyeball check.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
