[doc] fix a potential grammer mistake

On 3 Aug 2022, at 10:10, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:

I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have,
what do you think?

```
/*
-                        * We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
+                        * We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
* Start a subtransaction.  (DefineSavepoint already did
* PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to
put the SUBBEGIN
* state.)
```

I'm not so sure. If I read this right the intent of the sentence is to convey
that the user has issued a SAVEPOINT to the backend, not the backend itself. I
think the current wording is the correct one.

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/

Op 03-08-2022 om 10:10 schreef Junwang Zhao:

I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have,
what do you think?

```
/*
-                        * We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
+                        * We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
* Start a subtransaction.  (DefineSavepoint already did
* PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to
put the SUBBEGIN
* state.)
```

I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
"have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
meaning significantly as far as I can see.

'we were issued' does reflect the perspective of the receiving code a
bit better.

Erik

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:23 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:

On 3 Aug 2022, at 10:10, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:

I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have,
what do you think?

```
/*
-                        * We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
+                        * We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
* Start a subtransaction.  (DefineSavepoint already did
* PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to
put the SUBBEGIN
* state.)
```

I'm not so sure. If I read this right the intent of the sentence is to convey
that the user has issued a SAVEPOINT to the backend, not the backend itself. I
think the current wording is the correct one.

Got it, using `were` here means the backend is the receiver of the
action, not the sender.
That makes sense, thanks a lot.

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/

--
Regards
Junwang Zhao

yeah, not a grammar mistake at all, "were" should be used here, thanks
for pointing that out ;)

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:27 PM Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:

Op 03-08-2022 om 10:10 schreef Junwang Zhao:

I think in the following sentence, were should be replaced with have,
what do you think?

```
/*
-                        * We were just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
+                        * We have just issued a SAVEPOINT inside a
transaction block.
* Start a subtransaction.  (DefineSavepoint already did
* PushTransaction, so as to have someplace to
put the SUBBEGIN
* state.)
```

I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
"have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
meaning significantly as far as I can see.

'we were issued' does reflect the perspective of the receiving code a
bit better.

Erik

--
Regards
Junwang Zhao

Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> writes:

I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
"have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
meaning significantly as far as I can see.

I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active.
I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly,
but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing.

Possibly "The user issued ..." would work.

regards, tom lane

Attachment is a corrected version based on Tom's suggestion.

Thanks.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> writes:

I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
"have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
meaning significantly as far as I can see.

I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active.
I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly,
but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing.

Possibly "The user issued ..." would work.

regards, tom lane

--
Regards
Junwang Zhao

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:15 AM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:

Attachment is a corrected version based on Tom's suggestion.

Thanks.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> writes:

I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
"have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
meaning significantly as far as I can see.

I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active.
I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly,
but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing.

Possibly "The user issued ..." would work.

Is there a reason that the first case says "just" issued vs the other
two cases? It seems to me that it should be removed.

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 12:42 AM Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:15 AM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:

Attachment is a corrected version based on Tom's suggestion.

Thanks.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> writes:

I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
"have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
meaning significantly as far as I can see.

I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active.
I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly,
but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing.

Possibly "The user issued ..." would work.

Is there a reason that the first case says "just" issued vs the other
two cases? It seems to me that it should be removed.

Attachment is a patch with the "just" removed.

Thanks

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net

--
Regards
Junwang Zhao

On 4 Aug 2022, at 00:44, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:

Attachment is a patch with the "just" removed.

I think this is a change for better, so I've pushed it. Thanks for the
contribution!

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:32 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:

On 4 Aug 2022, at 00:44, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:

Attachment is a patch with the "just" removed.

I think this is a change for better, so I've pushed it. Thanks for the
contribution!

Thanks!

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net