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 Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-tor8E4mWa4dmqR4HAwYqy-VHrFG3YtMvsiUcPfKnj5VA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade is failed for 'plpgsql_call_handler' handler
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?