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". -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
