Re: restore_command return code behaviour

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Jean-Christophe Arnu <jcarnu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: restore_command return code behaviour
Date: 2025-07-24 22:01:28
Message-ID: CAOYmi+nAPX5fBxcS3=ba439bBUN6eaZxi569d9kPqZfZ1Wk1sQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 2:18 PM Jean-Christophe Arnu <jcarnu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Could we perhaps improve the documentation by stating that return codes over 125 or (at least) 128 will lead to the server not starting?
>
> This may help people better understand the behaviour of the restore_command and quickly solve these kinds of issues without having to examine the source code.
>
> If you agree, we can suggest a patch for the documentation.

If you've tripped over it, I think we should consider a docs patch.

To confirm -- you're happy with the behavior as-is?

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2025-07-24 22:04:31 Re: Interrupts vs signals
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2025-07-24 21:40:05 Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c