On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:11:58AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > I think that's incorrect information to the user :-(
> > > > If the child terminates with exit(1), we will then say "child process
> > > > was terminated by exception 1. This seems to be a bug", which is clearly
> > > > not true.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you know a sure way of determining if the exitcode is a normal
> > > > exitcode or an exception code.
> > >
> > > Current CVS believes values >= 0x100 are non-exit() terminations.
> >
> > Why does it do that :-) That's clearly wrong. There are plenty of
> > exitcodes > 0x100 that aren't exceptions.
>
> Please read include/port/win32.h comment section on this and then reply.
> We only care about non-exit() exits.
Right. I did. and exit() can return a lot of error codes > 0x100. For example,
a simple:
int main(int argc, char *argv) {
exit(12345);
}
would break that assumption. (And yes, it works)
exit() takes a 32-bit signed integer, and that's what comes out to the
calling program (verified both with console and standalone program)
The MSDN link referes to the DDK which has to do with driver
development, not userspace. AFAIK, that list is not relevant here, and
I've seen no actual reference so far that it should be used to look up
exit codes.
Now, if we're only caring about exit() from *postgresqls own processes*,
that might hold true. In which case I withdraw that objection as long as
the comment i updated to reflect this ;-) But if we're talking about
exit() in general of any process, then it's simply wrong.
//Magnus
