Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Date: 2021-06-03 11:17:05
Message-ID: CAFiTN-tor8E4mWa4dmqR4HAwYqy-VHrFG3YtMvsiUcPfKnj5VA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It looks like for some of the fsm_set_and_search calls whose return
> value is ignored (in fsm_search and RecordPageWithFreeSpace), there's
> no (void). Is it intentional?

Basically, fsm_set_and_search, serve both "set" and "search", but it
only search if the "minValue" is > 0. So if the minvalue is passed as
0 then the return value is ignored intentionally. I can see in both
places where the returned value is ignored the minvalue is passed as
0.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-06-03 11:41:42 Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-06-03 10:54:48 Re: pg_upgrade is failed for 'plpgsql_call_handler' handler