Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tor, 2012-02-23 at 10:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> void * seems entirely reasonable given the two different usages, but
>> I would be happier if the patch added explicit casts whereever FH is
>> set to or used as one of these two types.

> That would add about 70 casts all over the place.  I don't think that
> will make things clearer or more robust.  I think we either leave it as
> my first patch for now or find a more robust solution with a union or
> something.

Hm.  Could we just create two separate fields?  It's not real clear to
me that forcing both these usages into a generic pointer buys much.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: incompatible pointer types with newer zlib at 2012-02-24 10:01:13 from Peter Eisentraut

Responses

• Re: incompatible pointer types with newer zlib at 2012-03-01 17:19:54 from Peter Eisentraut

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Yeb Havinga	Date: 2012-02-24 16:25:45
	Subject: Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label
Previous:	From: Marko Kreen	Date: 2012-02-24 15:46:16
	Subject: Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage