| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Takayuki Tsunakawa <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Win32 WEXITSTATUS too |
| Date: | 2007-01-23 15:31:12 |
| Message-ID: | 18995.1169566272@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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?
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-23 15:31:21 | Re: Updateable cursors |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-23 15:27:00 | Re: regular expressions stranges |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-23 15:32:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Win32 WEXITSTATUS too |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-23 15:26:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Win32 WEXITSTATUS too |