From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored? |
Date: | 2021-06-04 04:28:05 |
Message-ID: | 20210604042805.d7xsdhmsbwsxczwi@nol |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-04 05:24:51 | Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size? |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-06-04 04:08:13 | Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication |