| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use pg_icu_unicode_version(void) instead of pg_icu_unicode_version() |
| Date: | 2026-02-27 06:04:30 |
| Message-ID: | 2E8E63C9-A2F6-4723-A937-B9F6CB34C88A@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Feb 27, 2026, at 12:46, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> Standard practice in PostgreSQL is to use "foo(void)" instead of "foo()", as the
> latter looks like an "old-style" function declaration. 9b05e2ec08a did fix
> all the ones reported by -Wstrict-prototypes.
>
> af2d4ca191a4 introduced a new one, this patch fixes it.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Bertrand Drouvot
> PostgreSQL Contributors Team
> RDS Open Source Databases
> Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
> <v1-0001-Use-pg_icu_unicode_version-void-instead-of-pg_icu.patch>
This patch is straightforward.
What I'm interested in is the broader policy: when reviewing patches, if we encounter a foo() declaration, should we consistently request a change to foo(void)? If yes, the standard should be documented somewhere.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mahendra Singh Thalor | 2026-02-27 06:27:48 | pg_restore add --no-globals option when restored using pg_dumpall non-text dump |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-02-27 06:01:14 | Re: [PATCH] Support automatic sequence replication |