From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-11-26 16:58:04 |
Message-ID: | 20131126165804.GH6597@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian escribió:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:22:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Uh, I ended up mentioning "no effect" to highlight it does nothing,
> > > rather than mention a warning. Would people prefer I say "warning"? Or
> > > should I say "issues a warning because it has no effect" or something?
> > > It is easy to change.
> >
> > I'd revert the change Robert highlights above. ISTM you've changed the
> > code to match the documentation; why would you then change the docs?
>
> Well, I did it to make it consistent. The question is what to write for
> _all_ of the new warnings, including SET. Do we say "warning", do we
> say "it has no effect", or do we say both? The ABORT is a just one case
> of that.
Maybe "it emits a warning and otherwise has no effect"? Emitting a
warning is certainly not doing nothing; as has been pointed out in the
SSL renegotiation thread, it might cause the log to fill disk.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-26 17:02:37 | Re: Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2013-11-26 16:57:45 | Cleaner build output when not much has changed |