On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 10:20:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pe...@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 <br...@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?"
