Quick Links

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

From:	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To:	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject:	Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Date:	2021-06-03 10:54:28
Message-ID:	CALj2ACXvBxB96yCQETaBmKdTsYXSbFj=BCQAeiOR2ouVM6HuTA@mail.gmail.com
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Thread:
Lists:	pgsql-hackers

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? In the code base, we generally have
(void) when non-void return value of a function is ignored.

Thoughts?

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.

Responses

Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored? at 2021-06-03 11:17:05 from Dilip Kumar
Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored? at 2021-06-03 11:51:51 from Julien Rouhaud
Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored? at 2021-06-03 12:57:42 from Peter Eisentraut

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Daniel Gustafsson	2021-06-03 10:54:48	Re: pg_upgrade is failed for 'plpgsql_call_handler' handler
Previous Message	Amit Kapila	2021-06-03 10:07:28	Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep