From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Linux start script updates |
Date: | 2010-03-01 16:31:18 |
Message-ID: | 18267.1267461078@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-03-01 16:32:24 | Re: contrib/xml2 regression tests vs no-libxslt build option |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-01 16:30:04 | Re: Re: pgsql: add EPERM to the list of return codes to expect from opening |