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

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:19:54PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:05:20PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:27:49AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > OK, great, I have gone with Alvaro's wording; patch attached.
>
> Duh, missing patch. Attached now.

Patch applied.

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

+ Everyone has their own god. +