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

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 01:58:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

OK, doc patch attached.

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

+ Everyone has their own god. +