Re: Add SHELL_EXIT_CODE to psql

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 128+N is implemented.
>
> I think this mostly looks OK, but:
>
> * I still say there is no basis whatever for believing that the result
> of ferror() is an exit code, errno code, or anything else with
> significance beyond zero-or-not. Feeding it to wait_result_to_exit_code
> as you've done here is not going to do anything but mislead people in
> a platform-dependent way. Probably should set exit_code to -1 if
> ferror reports trouble.
>

Agreed. Sorry, I read your comment wrong the last time or I would have
already made it so.

>
> * Why do you have wait_result_to_exit_code defaulting to return 0
> if it doesn't recognize the code as either WIFEXITED or WIFSIGNALED?
> That seems pretty misleading; again -1 would be a better idea.
>

That makes sense as well. Given that WIFSIGNALED is currently defined as
the negation of WIFEXITED, whatever default result we have here is
basically a this-should-never-happen. That might be something we want to
catch with an assert, but I'm fine with a -1 for now.