| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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 16:22:39 |
| Message-ID: | 8247.1385482959@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:04:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> But the documentation says:
>>
>> - Issuing <command>ABORT</> when not inside a transaction does
>> - no harm, but it will provoke a warning message.
>> + Issuing <command>ABORT</> outside of a transaction block has no effect.
>>
>> Those things are not the same.
> 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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-26 16:29:02 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-26 15:46:48 | Re: UNION ALL on partitioned tables won't use indices. |