Thank you Robert and sorry for bothering you with a silly question! I understand what I did clearly thanks to your attentive indication.
At Mon, 21 Dec 2015 07:50:40 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote in <CA+TgmoY_mW8wg1DoT61yE71UwnWmYMfDX=oad+4yygpsqeu...@mail.gmail.com> > >> >> + * lead the client to believe that the transaction is aborted, which > >> No, that's correct the way it is. What you're proposing wouldn't > >> exactly be wrong, but it's a little less clear and direct. > > > > Hmm. I thought they are equal in meaning and make clearer, but I > > understand they have such difference. Thank you for correcting > > it. > > The difference is that if you say "the transaction aborted" you mean > that the transaction did something - specifically, it aborted. If you > say that "the transaction is aborted" you are talking about the state > in which the transaction ended up, without really saying how it got > that way. What I made here was a mistake of the word class of the "transaction" by somehow omitting the "that" in the original sentense. It is not the objective case as in the case where the "that" is omitted, but the subjective case there. Then the "aborted" is not the objective complement but the past tense. The "that" had been returned in my mind before I knew it but, after all, adding "is" there utterly changes the maning as you pointed out. > In this case we are talking about whether the client might > think that the transaction did something (aborted), not what the > client might think about the state we ended up in (aborted), so the > current wording seems better to me. I understand that you're completely right. Sorry for my silly mistake. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
