Re: restore_command return code behaviour

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 8:19 AM Jean-Christophe Arnu <jcarnu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> You're also right. That's more consistent and easier to read.
> Thank you for pointing this out.

I agree that reusing archive_command's wording is probably the way to
go. I think archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_command have the
same issue; opinions on changing those as well?

Nitpick mode: I think the current wording for archive_command could be
misleading.

> an error by the shell with an exit status greater than 125 (such as command not found)

The phrase "by the shell" is not really true here (that's kind of the
point of the thread, I'd argue) and I'm wondering if we should move
that to the parenthetical. But I don't like any of my draft ideas so
far, and I don't want to get in the way of a small improvement by
demanding perfection.

Thanks,
--Jacob