On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
+1 I'm on board with this. > > -- > 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