On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:43:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@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.GI13790@momjian.us
> > and the idea of keeping what we have is stated here:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51D1E482.5090602@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
