Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:17:55PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Bruce Momjian escribió: >>> 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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
