Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ox49A-0001kj-5N for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:35:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ox497-0002Yh-OT for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:35:25 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ox496-0002YY-Ta for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:35:25 +0000 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ox48x-0002XA-TF for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:35:23 +0000 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE2C5C01B4; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:35:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1669026914; x=1669113314; bh=f gTAKMopOlk82D8pOU0zLqtovXAu/rzvuV/HenNII3w=; b=E/3DJ0vQSMWVJYS0r v88mbTBKt1qSXFlbqXJgqfmC12YP91fqlWA8PrtoUqkCHY+g9Ih/2mIrQiHYuOur U88RBNN48YmL7lS+ii8C4YnHWQ6nWJs+JGkZuSqWk0zdQXR33WnEDMpDID1kMjr1 Vl2zxieepO2TEP6Z570/WJgaxaGDvSit8PweGZTJ9ojZwL1F2DaWeB6hd6V28AaZ ChLuo+JFTYzvn6mZP9zrsa7MfvJPcZ+GCbIMHG+fuID+8Dmw/nANjua2aUMBch1b JCSIaluDiYgan208DhWIyQ72z5OepMz2S/KnT86y0yrmS2FfgBT5Ob4RRkE32CKU 45INQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvgedrheeigddujecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfggtggugfgjsehtkeertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhvrghr ohcujfgvrhhrvghrrgcuoegrlhhvhhgvrhhrvgesrghlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhgqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvkedtffduffdtffffheffhfejjefhgfeiueeukeejkeff gfdufffhudffffeuveenucffohhmrghinhepvghnthgvrhhprhhishgvuggsrdgtohhmne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlvhhh vghrrhgvsegrlhhvhhdrnhhoqdhiphdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 538CD39C; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:35:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:35:09 +0100 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Laurenz Albe Cc: Bruce Momjian , Robert Treat , Simon Riggs , Erik Rijkers , Justin Pryzby , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes Message-ID: <20221121103509.3sruif2h3msjsbw3@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <07d63204be526d4c74c322c3f1646e76e5ba3910.camel@cybertec.at> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Agreed on not using "unaborted", per previous discussion. On 2022-Nov-21, Laurenz Albe wrote: > Perhaps we should also avoid the term "transaction block". Even without speaking > of a "block", way too many people confuse PL/pgSQL's BEGIN ... END blocks > with transactions. On the other hand, we use "transaction block" everywhere > else in the documentation... Yeah, I don't understand why we need this "transaction block" term at all. It adds nothing. We could just use the term "transaction", and little meaning would be lost. When necessary, we could just say "explicit transaction" or something to that effect. In this particular case, we could modify your proposed wording, > > Multi-statement transactions can be created explicitly using > BEGIN or START TRANSACTION and > are ended using COMMIT or ROLLBACK. > An SQL statement outside of a transaction block automatically uses > a single-statement transaction. > by removing the word "block": > Any SQL statement outside of an transaction automatically uses > a single-statement transaction. and perhaps add "explicit", but I don't think it's necessary: > Any SQL statement outside of an explicit transaction automatically > uses a single-statement transaction. (I also changed "An" to "Any" because it seems more natural, but I suppose it's a stylistic choice.) -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/