On 2020-07-07 18:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@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
