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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(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 20:08:04
Message-ID: 9fe0dd03-7cc9-9b48-12d4-a1810aab56c4@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04.06.21 06:28, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> 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.

I'm not clear how you'd make a guideline out of this, other than, "it's
also done elsewhere".

In this case I'd actually split the function in two, one that returns
void and one that always returns a value to be consumed. This
overloading is a bit confusing.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2021-06-04 20:09:26 Re: Support for CREATE MODULE?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-06-04 19:53:05 Re: DELETE CASCADE