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

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:11 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:47 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Basically, fsm_set_and_search, serve both "set" and "search", but it
> > only search if the "minValue" is > 0.  So if the minvalue is passed as
> > 0 then the return value is ignored intentionally.  I can see in both
> > places where the returned value is ignored the minvalue is passed as
> > 0.
>
> Thanks. I know why we are ignoring the return value. I was trying to
> say, when we ignore (for whatsoever reason it maybe) return value of
> any non-void returning function, we do something like below right?
>
> (void) fsm_set_and_search(rel, addr, slot, new_cat, 0);
>
> instead of
>
> fsm_set_and_search(rel, addr, slot, new_cat, 0);

Okay, I thought you were asking whether we are ignoring the return
value is intentional or not.  Yeah, typecasting the return with void
is a better practice for ignoring the return value.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com