Thread: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake

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.)
```


-- 
Regards
Junwang Zhao

> 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/