mirror of
https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git
synced 2026-10-23 13:29:09 +03:00
e87c55f4d8
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 <devisettirithvika@gmail.com> Reported-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> Reviewed-by: Kiran Kaki <itskkpg@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Satyanarayana Narlapuram <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14415b05-16d0-446f-ba7d-c891db8b3406%40eisentraut.org Backpatch-through: 19