On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 1:38 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.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".
I proposed to do (void) fsm_set_and_search by looking at lot of other places (more than few 100) in the code base like (void) defGetBoolean(def) (void) hv_iterinit(obj) (void) set_config_option( and so on. I'm not sure whether having consistent code in a few hundred places amounts to a standard practice. > 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. Thanks. I don't want to go in that direction. Instead I choose to withdraw the proposal here and let the fsm_set_and_search function usage be as is. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
