On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 12:30 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]> wrote: > In this case, what we would accomplish is that no new developer to the > project has to understand what some unclear typedef means, *unless* they > touch GIN related code. Just from its name it's definitely not clear to me > that Pointer means char * instead of void *. And this typedef is ven shorter > than the thing it represents.
+1. > Side annoyance: I think this is a falacy that hackers discussions end up in a > lot. Someone suggesting that the partial improvements have (almost) no > benefit and all cases need to be fixed in one go to before it should be > committed. Then the patch author thinks that's too much work and then nothing > ends up being improved at all. This is definitely a thing that happens, but what also happens pretty often is that people claim that we'll follow up on a partial improvement with lots more work and then we never do, and then it creates a big mess for somebody else to untangle later. I understand the frustration with getting a partial solution blocked, because half a loaf is better than none, but I've also done my share of cleaning up changes that weren't so much half a loaf as half-baked. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
