"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > I can't see a clear case either way. I know I *have* seen scripts > which took the trouble to special-case it, but I just poked around > and found that it seems much less common than unconditionally using > "exit 5". Does anyone know of an environment where it matters?
Probably not. You might find it entertaining to read the current Fedora guidelines for init scripts: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript The skeleton shown there only bothers to throw exit 5 when the program is missing at start time. I think though that the answer to Peter's question is that "stop" has to be special cased to some extent, because it is not supposed to be an error to stop a service that's not running. If it's not even installed, then a fortiori it's not running, so the exit code *must* be 0 not 5 in that case. I've even been told that you should get 0 if you run "service foo stop" on a non-running service as a non-superuser, ie, a case where you *would* get a failure (no permissions) if the service were running. I'm not sure I believe that last bit myself, but Red Hat has got some test scripts that think this. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
