On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:11 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:47 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@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
