From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | bt22nakamorit(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
Cc: | torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Make ON_ERROR_STOP stop on shell script failure |
Date: | 2022-09-29 03:35:04 |
Message-ID: | 20220929.123504.1824301713608286657.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 29 Sep 2022 11:29:40 +0900, bt22nakamorit <bt22nakamorit(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
> 2022-09-28 21:49 に torikoshia さんは書きました:
> >> if (result == 127 || result == -1)
> >> {
> >> pg_log_error("\\!: failed");
> >> return false;
> >> }
> >> else if (result != 0) {
> >> pg_log_error("command failed");
> >> return false;
> > Since it would be hard to understand the cause of failures from these
> > two messages, it might be better to clarify them in the messages.
> > The former comes from failures of child process creation or execution
> > on it and the latter occurs when child process creation and execution
> > succeeded but the return code is not 0, doesn't it?
> > I also felt it'd be natural that the latter message also begins with
> > "\\!" since both message concerns with \!.
> > How do you think?
>
> Thank you for the feedback!
> I agree that the messages should be more clear.
> \\!: command was not executed
> \\!: command failed
> Would these two messages be enough to describe the two cases?
FWIW, I would spell these as something like this:
> \\!: command execution failure: %m
> \\!: command returned failure status: %d
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-09-29 03:45:31 | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-09-29 02:56:58 | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |