On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:44:34 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote > in <CA+Tgmoakj-Mjmz03bdC69DJvf-DpxrzUVOOVCqOD_pQJ=5r...@mail.gmail.com> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> <horiguchi.kyot...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
