From: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | daniel(at)yesql(dot)se |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake |
Date: | 2022-08-03 08:35:52 |
Message-ID: | CAEG8a3LMcV4FFF-HtAE5M05UWcJS6tV8xC6aXL2GeR7rqFPihQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:23 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Aug 2022, at 10:10, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have,
> > what do you think?
> >
> > ```
> > /*
> > - * We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
> > transaction block.
> > + * We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
> > transaction block.
> > * Start a subtransaction. (DefineSavepoint already did
> > * PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to
> > put the SUBBEGIN
> > * state.)
> > ```
>
> I'm not so sure. If I read this right the intent of the sentence is to convey
> that the user has issued a SAVEPOINT to the backend, not the backend itself. I
> think the current wording is the correct one.
>
Got it, using `were` here means the backend is the receiver of the
action, not the sender.
That makes sense, thanks a lot.
> --
> Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
>
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2022-08-03 08:38:01 | Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake |
Previous Message | Erikjan Rijkers | 2022-08-03 08:27:42 | Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake |