| 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: | 2021-06-05 07:36:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_aw468VyL3zou5xBdL0JnwCRSmmVAtWs69W1MdC-XURCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:08 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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".
When it can be confusing, like here?
> 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.
That would work too, but it may be overkill as it's not a public API.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Abbas Butt | 2021-06-05 11:08:00 | Logical replication keepalive flood |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-06-05 07:30:42 | Re: DELETE CASCADE |