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

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:57:42PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 03.06.21 12:54, Bharath Rupireddy 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.
> 
> I don't think that is correct.  I don't see anyone writing
> 
> (void) printf(...);

We somehow do have a (void) fprint(...) in src/port/getopt.c.

> so this is not a generally applicable strategy.
> 
> We have pg_nodiscard for functions where you explicitly want callers to
> check the return value.  In all other cases, callers are free to ignore
> return values.

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.