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

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:22:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:04:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> But the documentation says:
> >>
> >> - Issuing <command>ABORT</> when not inside a transaction does
> >> - no harm, but it will provoke a warning message.
> >> + Issuing <command>ABORT</> outside of a transaction block has no effect.
> >>
> >> Those things are not the same.
>
> > 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.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +