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