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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
