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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Julien Rouhaud
Тема Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?
Дата
Msg-id CAOBaU_a0yNSgN5M429tO6kaVuDzCN8Xj2hFmJG6C5=GOy=Y66A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
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.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key
Следующее
От: Dilip Kumar
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?