Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 01:58:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian escribió:
>> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:22:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> > > > Uh, I ended up mentioning "no effect" to highlight it does nothing,
>> > > > rather than mention a warning. Would people prefer I say "warning"? Or
>> > > > should I say "issues a warning because it has no effect" or something?
>> > > > It is easy to change.
>> > >
>> > > I'd revert the change Robert highlights above. ISTM you've changed the
>> > > code to match the documentation; why would you then change the docs?
>> >
>> > Well, I did it to make it consistent. The question is what to write for
>> > _all_ of the new warnings, including SET. Do we say "warning", do we
>> > say "it has no effect", or do we say both? The ABORT is a just one case
>> > of that.
>>
>> Maybe "it emits a warning and otherwise has no effect"? Emitting a
>> warning is certainly not doing nothing; as has been pointed out in the
>> SSL renegotiation thread, it might cause the log to fill disk.
>
> OK, doc patch attached.

Seems broadly reasonable, but I'd use "no other effect" throughout.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company