On 2020-07-03 16:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that gcc explicitly documents "void (*) (void)" as being what
> to use, they're going to have a hard time changing their minds about
> that ... and gcc is dominant enough in this space that I suppose
> other compilers would have to be compatible with it. So even though
> it's theoretically bogus, I suppose we might as well go along with
> it. The typedef will allow a centralized fix if we ever find a
> better answer.
Do people prefer a typedef or just writing it out, like it's done in the
Python code?
Attached is a provisional patch that has it written out.
I'm minimally in favor of that, since the Python code would be
consistent with the Python core code, and the one other use is quite
special and it might not be worth introducing a globally visible
workaround for it. But if we prefer a typedef then I'd propose
GenericFuncPtr like in the initial patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
