On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 01:58:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Bruce Momjian escribió: >> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:22:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> > > > 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. >> >> Maybe "it emits a warning and otherwise has no effect"? Emitting a >> warning is certainly not doing nothing; as has been pointed out in the >> SSL renegotiation thread, it might cause the log to fill disk. > > OK, doc patch attached.
Seems broadly reasonable, but I'd use "no other effect" throughout. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
