Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:01 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> * Why do you have wait_result_to_exit_code defaulting to return 0
>> if it doesn't recognize the code as either WIFEXITED or WIFSIGNALED?
>> That seems pretty misleading; again -1 would be a better idea.
> That makes sense as well. Given that WIFSIGNALED is currently defined as
> the negation of WIFEXITED, whatever default result we have here is
> basically a this-should-never-happen.
Good point. So we'd better have it first pass through -1 literally,
else pclose() or system() failure will be reported as something
misleading (probably signal 127?).
Pushed with that change, some cosmetic adjustments, and one significant
logic change in do_backtick: I made it do
if (fd)
{
/*
* Although pclose's result always sets SHELL_EXIT_CODE, we
* historically have abandoned the backtick substitution only if it
* returns -1.
*/
exit_code = pclose(fd);
if (exit_code == -1)
{
pg_log_error("%s: %m", cmd);
error = true;
}
}
As you had it, any nonzero result would prevent backtick substitution.
I'm not really sure how much thought went into the existing behavior,
but I am pretty sure that it's not part of this patch's charter to
change that.
regards, tom lane
