Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> writes:
> In a previous thread[0], the question was asked, 'Why do we bother with
> a "Pointer" type?'. So I looked into get rid of it.
> There are two stages to this. One is changing all code that wants to do
> pointer arithmetic to use char * instead of relying on Pointer being
> char *. Then we can change Pointer to be void * and remove a bunch of
> casts.
I'm in favor of that ...
> The second is getting rid of uses of Pointer for variables where you
> might as well use void * directly. These are actually not that many.
... but not of that. In particular, I think it's just fine if
DatumGetPointer and PointerGetDatum take and return Pointer.
regards, tom lane
