From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |
Date: | 2013-11-29 05:27:49 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ2FOFd-oGwP2f=yCOE334NFfcQfqWrsE-GUczEdyq6SA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
>
>> In all of these cases we are assuming that the user understands that
>> emitting a warning means that something is being logged to disk and thus is
>> causing a resource drain.
>>
>> I like explicitly saying that issuing these commands is pointless/"has no
>> effect"; being indirect and saying that the only thing they do is emit a
>> warning omits any explicit explicit explanation of why. And while I agree
>> that logging the warning is an effect; but it is not the primary/direct
>> effect that the user cares about.
>
> Honestly I still prefer what I proposed initially, which AFAICS has all
> the properties you deem desirable in the wording:
>
> "issuing ROLLBACK outside a transaction emits a warning and otherwise has no effect".
Yeah, I still like "otherwise has no effect" or "has no other effect"
best. But I can live with Bruce's latest proposal, too.
I wish we'd just left this whole thing well enough alone. It wasn't
broken, and didn't need fixing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-11-29 05:39:22 | Re: Modify the DECLARE CURSOR command tag depending on the scrollable flag |
Previous Message | Rajeev rastogi | 2013-11-29 04:30:13 | Re: TODO: Split out pg_resetxlog output into pre- and post-sections |