| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2021-06-03 12:54:08 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACWn8WNtvuOOuJD95fe1G+pSHfX+Fi8Sa_ai=QZoBEoOgA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:22 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:54 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)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.
Thanks. PSA v1 patch.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Use-void-when-return-value-of-fsm_set_and_search-.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-06-03 12:57:42 | Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored? |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-06-03 12:52:08 | Re: Duplicate history file? |