Re: PG versus libxml2 2.12.x

Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 27.01.24 20:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't mind adopting the "const" --- it's a good idea in isolation.
>> The trouble is in fixing our code to work with both old and new
>> libxml2 versions. We could thrash around with a configure test or
>> something, but I think the most expedient answer is just to insert
>> some explicit casts, as shown in the attached. It's possible though
>> that some compilers will throw a cast-away-const warning. I'm
>> not seeing any, but ...

> In PL/Tcl, we used to have these CONST84 and CONST86 things, for similar
> reasons. Maybe that would be another approach.

Yeah, if the simple cast approach turns out to create warnings,
we'll have to fall back on using actually different declarations.
I'm hoping to not have to go there.

regards, tom lane