I agree that reusing archive_command's wording is probably the way to go. I think archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_command have the same issue; opinions on changing those as well?
I agree, we could include both of those in the fix. But let's refine the wording.
Nitpick mode: I think the current wording for archive_command could be misleading.
> an error by the shell with an exit status greater than 125 (such as command not found)
The phrase "by the shell" is not really true here (that's kind of the point of the thread, I'd argue) and I'm wondering if we should move that to the parenthetical. But I don't like any of my draft ideas so far, and I don't want to get in the way of a small improvement by demanding perfection.
English is not my native language but let's try some wordings:
Proposals (scheme):
An exception is that if the command was terminated by a signal (other than SIGTERM which is used as part of a database server shutdown)
or a command returned with an exit code greater than 125, or an error by the shell
(such as command not found), then recovery will abort and the server will not start up.
Or
Therecoverywillbeabortedandtheserverwillstopifanyofthefollowingeventsoccur: - thecommand was terminated by a signal other than SIGTERM (which is used as part of a database server shutdown); - the command returns an exit code greater than 125 - the shell returns an error (such as 'command not found')
The former has a 'heavier' style; the latter has the benefit of clearly showing each condition for shutting down the server (but it breaks the GUC style, where bullet points areonly used for defining possible values).
