On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:44:34 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in
<CA+Tgmoakj-Mjmz03bdC69DJvf-DpxrzUVOOVCqOD_pQJ=5RTuw@mail.gmail.com>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> > Hello, I think I found a typo in a comment of syncrep.c.
>> >
>> >> * acknowledge the commit nor raise ERROR or FATAL. The latter would
>> >> - * lead the client to believe that that the transaction aborted, which
>> >> * is not true: it's already committed locally. The former is no good
>> >
>> > The 'that' looks duplicate.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > And it might be better to put a
>> > be-verb before the 'aborted'.
>> >
>> >> + * 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. 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company