> On 29 Jul 2026, at 05:45, Neil Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. reindexdb and clusterdb appear to have the same problem — they also > abort on an unconnectable database. Should we apply the same fix to those > tools as well? Or is there a reason they should behave differently from > vacuumdb? It seems reasonable to make them all work the same. (I didn't read the patch so might be missing some technical reasoning.) > 2. vacuumdb --all now exits 0 even when some databases were skipped. > Scripts that rely on exit codes to detect failures would silently miss > skipped databases. > Might be worth considering whether the exit code should reflect that not all > databases were processed. While I agree that avoiding a new switch would be good, for this reason alone I think we should consider adding a --continue to trigger the skipping behaviour and keep --all with the current exit code handling. If we allow skipping then we really can't return anything other 0 even if we skip all databases. -- Daniel Gustafsson
