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

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:19:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:17:41PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Good points. I have modified the attached patch to do as you suggested.
>>
>> Also, I have read through the thread and summarized the positions of the
>> posters:
>>
>> 9.3 WARNING ERROR
>> SET none Tom, DavidJ, AndresF Robert, Kevin
>> SAVEPOINT error Tom, DavidJ, Robert, AndresF, Kevin
>> LOCK, DECLARE error Tom, DavidJ, Robert, AndresF, Kevin
>>
>> Everyone seems to agree that SAVEPOINT, LOCK, and DECLARE should remain
>> as errors. Everyone also seems to agree that BEGIN and COMMIT should
>> remain warnings, and ABORT should be changed from notice to warning.
>>
>> Our only disagreement seems to be how to handle the SET commands, which
>> used to report nothing. Would anyone else like to correct or express an
>> opinion? Given the current vote count and backward-compatibility,
>> warning seems to be the direction we are heading.
>
> Patch applied.

I must be missing something. The commit message for this patch says:

Also change ABORT outside of a transaction block from notice to
warning.

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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company