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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to