Re: anonymous unions (C11)

On 23.09.25 16:17, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 11:38:22AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That said, I did go overboard here and converted all the struct/union
>> combinations I could find, but I'm not necessarily proposing to apply
>> all of them.  I'm proposing patches 0001 through 0004, which are
>> relatively simple or in areas that have already changed a few times
>> recently (so backpatching would not be trivial anyway), and/or they
>> are somewhat close to my heart because they originally motivated this
>> work a long time ago.  But if someone finds among the other patches
>> one that they particularly like, we could add that one as well.
> 
> I would have used this in the DSM registry if it was available.  Patch
> attached.

This looks good to me, and also mostly harmless in terms of backpatching.