From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: "pg_ctl promote" exit status |
Date: | 2013-07-01 20:20:18 |
Message-ID: | 51D1E482.5090602@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/1/13 12:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Approximately none of these changes seem correct to me. For example,
>> why is failing to open the PID file 6, or failing to start the server 7?
>
> Well, according to that URL, we have:
>
> 6 program is not configured
> 7 program is not running
There is also
4 user had insufficient privilege
> I just updated the pg_ctl.c comments to at least point to a valid URL
> for this. I think we can just call this item closed because I am still
> unclear if these return codes should be returned by pg_ctl or the
> start/stop script.
>
> Anyway, while I do think pg_ctl could pass a little more information
> back about failure via its return code, I am unclear if LSB is the right
> approach.
Yeah, a lot of these things are unclear and not used in practice, so
it's probably better to stick to exit code 1, unless there is a clear
use case. The "status" case is different, because there the exit code
can be passed out by the init script directly.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-07-01 20:30:14 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-01 20:12:16 | Re: Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort |