Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:37:24 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: dummy commit
Message-ID: <20200331213724.GG17676@momjian.us>
References: <E1jJOQ8-0004k4-9W@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <31072.1585690490@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <31072.1585690490@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 05:34:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > dummy commit
> 
> Uh, what?
> 
> Also, I disagree with your change of the wording about savepoint
> rollbacks.  I agree that "if the savepoint is rolled back to"
> is a bit awkward, but I think dropping the "to" is flat wrong.
> The savepoint is a point you roll back to, it doesn't itself
> disappear when you do so.  That's why the SQL syntax is
> "ROLLBACK TO savepoint" and not just "ROLLBACK savepoint".

OK, I will re-add the "to".

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +