On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:59:31PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
That sounds awkward, e.g.: Issuing <command>ROLLBACK</> outside of a transaction block emits a warning but has no other effect. I could live with this: Issuing <command>ROLLBACK</> outside of a transaction block has no effect except emitting a warning. -- 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