Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly

On 08.12.25 11:53, Chao Li wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 8, 2025, at 18:25, David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>> I went with your proposal of GinExtraPointer. See attached patch. It's
>>> based on the series of patches from Peter's initial mail. I've included
>>> the removal of the Pointer typedef in the same patch.
>>
>> It seems to me that we reached agreement. Are you planning to still
>> apply these patches?
>>
>
> Basically I am not against this patch, as 756a43689324b473ee07549a6eb7a53a203df5ad has done similar changes.
>
> What I want to understand is that why do we delete Pointer and add GinExtraPointer?
>
> ```
> -/*
> - * Pointer
> - * Variable holding address of any memory resident object.
> - * (obsolescent; use void * or char *)
> - */
> -typedef void *Pointer;
> ```
>
> And
> ```
> +typedef void *GinExtraPointer;
> ```
>
> They both are underlying “void *”. Are we expecting to improve code readability? More specific maybe?

I was planning to proceed with Dagfinn's patch set. Here is what is
currently remaining of the patch series. I haven't fully processed
everyone's comments in this thread, so they might not be reflected in
these patches.

There is some interference from the changes from palloc to
palloc_object/_array/etc., and I was also trying to figure out what to
do with the commented out code, hence the delay.