| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Morten Hustveit <morten(at)eventures(dot)vc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |
| Date: | 2013-11-28 22:18:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20131128221828.GB20216@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:51:14PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Seems broadly reasonable, but I'd use "no other effect" throughout.
> >
> > That sounds awkward, e.g.:
> >
> > Issuing <command>ROLLBACK</> outside of a transaction
> > block emits a warning but has no other effect.
> >
> > I could live with this:
> >
> > Issuing <command>ROLLBACK</> outside of a transaction
> > block has no effect except emitting a warning.
>
> I prefer the first version, but that's obviously a judgement call.
How about:
Issuing <command>ROLLBACK</> outside of a transaction
block has the sole effect of emitting a warning.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-28 22:32:30 | Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-28 22:17:07 | Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL |