Re: Code checks for App Devs, using new options for transaction behavior

From: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Code checks for App Devs, using new options for transaction behavior
Date: 2022-10-28 06:54:29
Message-ID: 867c9a53-ef29-07ed-7802-c6a9e0a83f55@xs4all.nl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Op 27-10-2022 om 18:35 schreef Simon Riggs:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 12:09, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Comments please
>
> Update from patch tester results.
>

> [001_psql_parse_only.v1.patch ]
> [002_nested_xacts.v7.patch ]
> [003_rollback_on_commit.v1.patch ]
> [004_add_params_to_sample.v1.patch]

patch 002 has (2x) :
'transction' should be
'transaction'

also in patch 002:
'at any level will be abort' should be
'at any level will abort'

I also dislike the 'we' in

'Once we reach the top-level transaction,'

That seems a bit too much like the 'we developers working together to
make a database server system' which is of course used often and
usefully on this mailinglist and in code itself. But I think
user-facing docs should be careful with that team-building 'we'. I
remember well how it confused me, many years ago. Better, IMHO:

'Once the top-level transaction is reached,'

Thanks,

Erik Rijkers

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-10-28 07:05:12 Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-10-28 06:52:51 psql: Add command to use extended query protocol