Обсуждение: A typo in syncrep.c
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. And it might be better to put a be-verb before the 'aborted'. > + * lead the client to believe that the transaction is aborted, which regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
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. Committed the part of your patch that removes the extra "that". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hello, 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. > Committed the part of your patch that removes the extra "that". Thank you! regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
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
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 <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in <CA+TgmoY_mW8wg1DoT61yE71UwnWmYMfDX=oAD+4yYgPSQEUDHQ@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
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > 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 <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in <CA+TgmoY_mW8wg1DoT61yE71UwnWmYMfDX=oAD+4yYgPSQEUDHQ@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. Actually, you might be surprised to hear that you can omit the word "that" here without changing the meaning. I tend to avoid that in formal writing for clarity but the word isn't technically necessary. >> 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. It's not a silly mistake. And I do appreciate you taking the time to proofread. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company