2nd "was"

[hooshdar3]

Hi.
"if log entry wasn’t saved before the crash, corresponding change was not applied to database"
Shouldn't the second "was" be "would have been"?

[BobK]

Hi.
"if log entry wasn’t saved before the crash, corresponding change was not applied to database"
Shouldn't the second "was" be "would have been"?

No. It would not be incorrect to say 'would not have been applied to database', or 'cannot have been applied to database', but they all mean different things.

b

[hooshdar3]

No. It would not be incorrect to say 'would not have been applied to database', or 'cannot have been applied to database', but they all mean different things.

b

Sorry, how do each version mean?

[emsr2d2]

Sorry, how what does each version mean?

emsr2d2

[BobK]

Thank you for being so tolerant and patient. 8 hours can seem such a long time.

• it was - a fact; this is known to be true
• it would have been - this is probable; in this context it suggests that the user did something silly . The support engineer is saying 'It would definitely have been applied to the database if you'd saved the log entry, so you can't have. (I don't know, you're the third bozo I've had to deal with this week.).'
• it could have been - this is a remoter possibility, possibly one among many