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 Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Date
Msg-id CAOBaU_a0yNSgN5M429tO6kaVuDzCN8Xj2hFmJG6C5=GOy=Y66A@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 6:54 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.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.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?