Re: restore_command return code behaviour

From: Jean-Christophe Arnu <jcarnu(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: restore_command return code behaviour
Date: 2025-08-05 10:40:32
Message-ID: CAHZmTm2359S1cnQS2MJkAXopLrP2faQnph0kfVbAmDPg1Z3a3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Le lun. 4 août 2025, 04:45, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
a écrit :

>
> How about:
>
> Recovery will abort and the server will not start up upon any of the
> following:
> the shell is unable to execute the command (due to it not being found or
> executable),
> the command returns an exit status greater than 125, or a non-SIGTERM
> signal
> terminates the shell process. SIGTERM allows a clean shutdown to happen,
> if there is one.
>
>
> Mostly just changing the order a bit but goes from most immediate when
> making a change (bad command written into the GUC) to least immediate or
> surprising (SIGTERM). The other two flow from there.
>

I agree. I like this concise way to explain the different cases.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-08-05 11:09:57 don't include tableam.h in nbtree.h
Previous Message John Naylor 2025-08-05 10:25:27 Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL