Agreed on not using "unaborted", per previous discussion. On 2022-Nov-21, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Perhaps we should also avoid the term "transaction block". Even without > speaking > of a "block", way too many people confuse PL/pgSQL's BEGIN ... END blocks > with transactions. On the other hand, we use "transaction block" everywhere > else in the documentation... Yeah, I don't understand why we need this "transaction block" term at all. It adds nothing. We could just use the term "transaction", and little meaning would be lost. When necessary, we could just say "explicit transaction" or something to that effect. In this particular case, we could modify your proposed wording, > <para> > Multi-statement transactions can be created explicitly using > <command>BEGIN</command> or <command>START TRANSACTION</command> and > are ended using <command>COMMIT</command> or <command>ROLLBACK</command>. > An SQL statement outside of a transaction block automatically uses > a single-statement transaction. > </para> by removing the word "block": > Any SQL statement outside of an transaction automatically uses > a single-statement transaction. and perhaps add "explicit", but I don't think it's necessary: > Any SQL statement outside of an explicit transaction automatically > uses a single-statement transaction. (I also changed "An" to "Any" because it seems more natural, but I suppose it's a stylistic choice.) -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
