Re: Use pg_icu_unicode_version(void) instead of pg_icu_unicode_version()

From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2026-03-03 01:22:21
Message-ID: b075ac34-11cb-4613-9721-9a5542c962fe@proxel.se
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/27/26 3:58 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 2/27/26 01:04, Chao Li wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps here?
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_checklist

Nah, I think we should just enable the warnings unless we have a good
reason not to.

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message jian he 2026-03-03 01:48:18 Re: pg_dumpall --roles-only interact with other options
Previous Message David Rowley 2026-03-03 01:08:19 Re: Reduce planning time for large NOT IN lists containing NULL