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

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