On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:22:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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?
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. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers