A typo in syncrep.c

Started by Kyotaro HORIGUCHIabout 10 years ago6 messages

horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp

about 10 years ago

1 attachment(s)

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

Attachments:

0001-fix-typo-of-syncrep.c.patchtext/x-patch; charset=us-asciiDownload

>From 6eb92736d318f6be35459d4406585aa34233bd5d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:52:19 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] fix typo of syncrep.c

---
 src/backend/replication/syncrep.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/replication/syncrep.c b/src/backend/replication/syncrep.c
index 325239d..98f7d73 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/syncrep.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/syncrep.c
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ SyncRepWaitForLSN(XLogRecPtr XactCommitLSN)
 		/*
 		 * If a wait for synchronous replication is pending, we can neither
 		 * acknowledge the commit nor raise ERROR or FATAL.  The latter would
-		 * lead the client to believe that that the transaction aborted, which
+		 * lead the client to believe that the transaction is aborted, which
 		 * is not true: it's already committed locally. The former is no good
 		 * either: the client has requested synchronous replication, and is
 		 * entitled to assume that an acknowledged commit is also replicated,
-- 
1.8.3.1

Robert Haas

robertmhaas@gmail.com

about 10 years ago

In reply to: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (#1)

Re: A typo in syncrep.c

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI

horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp

about 10 years ago

In reply to: Robert Haas (#2)

Re: A typo in syncrep.c

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas

robertmhaas@gmail.com

about 10 years ago

In reply to: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (#3)

Re: A typo in syncrep.c

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI

horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp

about 10 years ago

In reply to: Robert Haas (#4)

Re: A typo in syncrep.c

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas

robertmhaas@gmail.com

about 10 years ago

In reply to: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (#5)

Re: A typo in syncrep.c

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers