Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Date
Msg-id 9fe0dd03-7cc9-9b48-12d4-a1810aab56c4@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On 04.06.21 06:28, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Yes, but we have a lot a examples of functions without pg_nodiscard and callers
> still explicitly ignoring the results, like fsm_vacuum_page() in the same file.
> It would be more consistent and make the code slightly more self explanatory.

I'm not clear how you'd make a guideline out of this, other than, "it's 
also done elsewhere".

In this case I'd actually split the function in two, one that returns 
void and one that always returns a value to be consumed.  This 
overloading is a bit confusing.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: DELETE CASCADE
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for CREATE MODULE?