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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
