On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:46:09PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:27:15PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:59:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> 'Statement' might work.
> >
> > > OK, updated patch attached. Is "statement" too vague here? SQL
> > > statement? query?
> >
> > "SQL statement" might be a good idea in the first sentence, but
> > I don't think you need to repeat it in the second.
> >
> > What's bothering me about this wording is that you're talking about
> > statements and then suddenly reference transactions (as being "those
> > other things messing with your data"). This seems weirdly asymmetric,
> > since after all you could equally well be the one messing with their
> > data.
>
> Yes, that bugged me too, but then I realized that you only see the
> changes from a transaction when it completes, not from each statement,
> e.g. you can never see changes between statements of a multi-statement
> transaction.
>
> I used "SQL statement" in the updated, attached patch.
Applied.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
