On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Maybe the fix is to make --wait the default?
> I was wondering about that too ... does anyone remember the rationale
> for the current behavior? But the message for the non-wait case seems
> like it could stand to be improved independently of that.
Not totally independent.
If the default is changed to --wait then the message can be written
assuming the user understands what "--no-wait" does; but if the default is
left "--no-wait" then cluing the user into the asynchronous behavior and
telling them how to get the more expected synchronous behavior would be