On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:27:49AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
OK, great, I have gone with Alvaro's wording; patch attached. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
