Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Now, if we're only caring about exit() from *postgresqls own processes*, > >> that might hold true. In which case I withdraw that objection as long as > >> the comment i updated to reflect this ;-) But if we're talking about > >> exit() in general of any process, then it's simply wrong. > > > Right, that code is only used by the backend and tools. > > We can reasonably assume that no Postgres code will exit() with a value > bigger than 255, because to do so would be unportable. > > I'm more concerned about the other direction: can we be sure that a > status value less than 255 is from exit() rather than something that > should be called an exception?
Here are the values listed in ntstatus.h < 0x100: 36 #define STATUS_WAIT_0 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000000) 37 #define STATUS_WAIT_1 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000001) 38 #define STATUS_WAIT_2 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000002) 39 #define STATUS_WAIT_3 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000003) 40 #define STATUS_WAIT_63 ((NTSTATUS) 0x0000003f) 41 #define STATUS_ABANDONED ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000080) 42 #define STATUS_ABANDONED_WAIT_0 ((NTSTATUS) 0x00000080) 43 #define STATUS_ABANDONED_WAIT_63 ((NTSTATUS) 0x000000BF) 44 #define STATUS_USER_APC ((NTSTATUS) 0x000000C0) > And to get back to the point, surely all this confusion proves the point > about how the error message should NOT try to tell people how to > interpret the number. This all started because we as a community couldn't interpret the number. I don't see how pushing the interpetation to users helps us. We need to nail this down. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
