| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sam Vilain <sam(at)vilain(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [spf:guess] Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 00:25:05 |
| Message-ID: | 36BF6DA2-AADF-46BC-81E0-5D03D620FFA0@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 27, 2010, at 0:58 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 26/05/10 02:00, Sam Vilain wrote:
>> Florian Pflug wrote:
>>> On May 25, 2010, at 12:18 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> Releasing the newer savepoint will cause the older one to again become accessible, as the doc says, but rolling back to a savepoint does not implicitly release it. You'll have to use RELEASE SAVEPOINT for that.
>>>
>>> Ah, now I get it. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Would changing "Releasing the newer savepoint will cause ... " to "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint" or maybe even "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint with RELEASE SAVEPOINT will cause ..." make things clearer?
>>
>> Yes, probably - your misreading matches my misreading of it :-)
>
> +1.
Patch that changes the wording to "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint with RELEASE SAVEPOINT will cause ..." is attached.
Unfortunately, this patch is untested. I couldn't get openjade + DocBook to work on OSX for some reason :-(
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| doc-savepoint-explicitrelease.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-27 00:30:36 | Re: Regression testing for psql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-27 00:21:11 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |