On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:04:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:19:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:17:41PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > Good points. I have modified the attached patch to do as you suggested.
> >>
> >> Also, I have read through the thread and summarized the positions of the
> >> posters:
> >>
> >> 9.3 WARNING ERROR
> >> SET none Tom, DavidJ, AndresF Robert, Kevin
> >> SAVEPOINT error Tom, DavidJ, Robert, AndresF, Kevin
> >> LOCK, DECLARE error Tom, DavidJ, Robert, AndresF, Kevin
> >>
> >> Everyone seems to agree that SAVEPOINT, LOCK, and DECLARE should remain
> >> as errors. Everyone also seems to agree that BEGIN and COMMIT should
> >> remain warnings, and ABORT should be changed from notice to warning.
> >>
> >> Our only disagreement seems to be how to handle the SET commands, which
> >> used to report nothing. Would anyone else like to correct or express an
> >> opinion? Given the current vote count and backward-compatibility,
> >> warning seems to be the direction we are heading.
> >
> > Patch applied.
>
> I must be missing something. The commit message for this patch says:
>
> Also change ABORT outside of a transaction block from notice to
> warning.
>
> But the documentation says:
>
> - Issuing <command>ABORT</> when not inside a transaction does
> - no harm, but it will provoke a warning message.
> + Issuing <command>ABORT</> outside of a transaction block has no effect.
>
> Those things are not the same.
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.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +