missing documentation detail?
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t77918psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v3 (message #3), September 20, 2026 at 09:18 AM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t77918_3 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t77918_3 && git checkout t77918_3Patchset v3 (message #3) is on t77918_3
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/app-pgverifybackup.html
Description:
I was disappointed not to find the return code information on the
pg_verifybackup pages - I am using the utility in a script and it seems I
cannot distinguish between an invalid or 'bad' backup and a failed run (due
to e.g. bad path, missing manifest file) - it *seems* that either will
simply return as 1 but I am not certain. I would like to differentiate
between these states.
On Tuesday, December 16, 2025, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
wrote:
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/app-pgverifybackup.html
Description:I was disappointed not to find the return code information on the
pg_verifybackup pages - I am using the utility in a script and it seems I
cannot distinguish between an invalid or 'bad' backup and a failed run (due
to e.g. bad path, missing manifest file) - it *seems* that either will
simply return as 1 but I am not certain. I would like to differentiate
between these states.
This isn’t a good place to request feature enhancements. There isn’t an
issue with the documentation - the program doesn’t provide multiple
conditional exit codes.
Post a patch to -hackers or a feature request to -general (mailing list).
David J.
On 17 Dec 2025, at 14:20, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
This isn’t a good place to request feature enhancements. There isn’t an issue with the documentation - the program doesn’t provide multiple conditional exit codes.
Post a patch to -hackers or a feature request to -general (mailing list).
Absolutely right, that's the best way to propose new (or changes to) features.
The proposed change here seems pretty reasonable and might be as simple as the
(untested) attached, modeled around pg_amcheck. I noticed that pg_amcheck
doesn't document its different return values either which seems like an
oversight.
--
Daniel Gustafsson