Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > Right, that code is only used by the backend and tools.
>
> We can reasonably assume that no Postgres code will exit() with a value
> bigger than 255, because to do so would be unportable.
>
> I'm more concerned about the other direction: can we be sure that a
> status value less than 255 is from exit() rather than something that
> should be called an exception?
Here are the values listed in ntstatus.h < 0x100:
36 #define STATUS_WAIT_0 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000000)
37 #define STATUS_WAIT_1 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000001)
38 #define STATUS_WAIT_2 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000002)
39 #define STATUS_WAIT_3 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000003)
40 #define STATUS_WAIT_63 ((NTSTATUS) 0x0000003f)
41 #define STATUS_ABANDONED ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000080)
42 #define STATUS_ABANDONED_WAIT_0 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000080)
43 #define STATUS_ABANDONED_WAIT_63 ((NTSTATUS) 0x000000BF)
44 #define STATUS_USER_APC ((NTSTATUS) 0x000000C0)
> And to get back to the point, surely all this confusion proves the point
> about how the error message should NOT try to tell people how to
> interpret the number.
This all started because we as a community couldn't interpret the
number. I don't see how pushing the interpetation to users helps us.
We need to nail this down.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
