Re: A typo in syncrep.c
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A typo in syncrep.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYb0cJU04zhyu77=M1_bvWiP37kscgAbUcSe6PnmJBuTw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A typo in syncrep.c (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: