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

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(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 11:51:51
Message-ID: CAOBaU_a0yNSgN5M429tO6kaVuDzCN8Xj2hFmJG6C5=GOy=Y66A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:54 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's a good practice, +1 for changing that.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2021-06-03 11:57:36 Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Previous Message Amit Langote 2021-06-03 11:48:57 Re: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key