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 helpful. David J.
