Phil Sorber escribió: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - Same thing with this example: > > + <para> > > + Standard Usage: > > + <screen> > > + <prompt>$</prompt> <userinput>pg_isready</userinput> > > + <prompt>$</prompt> <userinput>echo $?</userinput> > > + <computeroutput>0</computeroutput> > > + </screen> > > + </para> > > For the time being PQPING_OK returns 0 because it is on top of the enum > > PGPing, but this might change if for a reason or another the order of > > outputs is changed. > > So I understand what you mean by the ordering might change, but this > is actual output from the shell. I'm not sure how to convey that > sentiment properly here and still have a real example. Perhaps just > remove the example? No, I think it is the reference docs on the returned value that must be fixed. That is, instead of saying that the return value correspond to the enum values, you should be saying that it will return <literal>0</literal> if it's okay, 1 in another case and 2 in yet another case. And then next to the PQping() enum, add a comment that the values must not be messed around with because pg_isready exposes them to users and shell scripts. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
