On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
>> In all of these cases we are assuming that the user understands that
>> emitting a warning means that something is being logged to disk and thus is
>> causing a resource drain.
>> I like explicitly saying that issuing these commands is pointless/"has no
>> effect"; being indirect and saying that the only thing they do is emit a
>> warning omits any explicit explicit explanation of why.  And while I agree
>> that logging the warning is an effect; but it is not the primary/direct
>> effect that the user cares about.
> Honestly I still prefer what I proposed initially, which AFAICS has all
> the properties you deem desirable in the wording:
> "issuing ROLLBACK outside a transaction emits a warning and otherwise has no 
> effect".

Yeah, I still like "otherwise has no effect" or "has no other effect"
best.  But I can live with Bruce's latest proposal, too.

I wish we'd just left this whole thing well enough alone.  It wasn't
broken, and didn't need fixing.

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:

Reply via email to