On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:43:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:17:55PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian escribi�: > >>> Technically, you are right, but I tried a while ago to assign meaningful > >>> values to all the exit locations and the community feedback I got was > >>> that we didn't want that. > > >> That sounds odd. Do you have a link? > > > Sure, the patch is here: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130629025033.gi13...@momjian.us > > and the idea of keeping what we have is stated here: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51d1e482.5090...@gmx.net > > Perhaps I shouldn't be putting words in Peter's mouth, but my reading of > his complaint was that he didn't think you'd mapped the pg_ctl failure > conditions to LSB status codes very well. That's not necessarily a vote > against the abstract idea of making it more LSB-compliant. > > But it seems like we might have to go through it case-by-case to argue out > what's the right error code for each case ... and I'm not sure anybody > thinks it's worth that much effort.
Yes, I think the question was whether the effort was worth it. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
