doc: Explain when to use the WAIT NO_THROW option The description of NO_THROW covered what the option does but not when an application would want it. Explain that it suits callers that treat timeout or not in recovery as expected results to be handled as part of ordinary control flow, note the obligation to check the returned status, and give the reason to omit the option.
Be precise about the option's scope: it changes only how those two wait outcomes are reported. Soften the description's claim that the command "returns a status string instead of throwing errors" accordingly, and say that invalid input still raises an error, as does any condition checked before the wait begins. Name two of those conditions as examples rather than listing them, since the set grows. Author: Rithvika Devisetti <[email protected]> Reported-by: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Kiran Kaki <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Satyanarayana Narlapuram <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14415b05-16d0-446f-ba7d-c891db8b3406%40eisentraut.org Backpatch-through: 19 Branch ------ REL_19_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/3f8b8ddea08a110e9f44af2b2e52312fca901eac Modified Files -------------- doc/src/sgml/ref/wait.sgml | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
