On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:08 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".
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.
