From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: anton.sidyakin@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bad choice of the word in sentence
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:16:39 -0400
Message-ID: <112752.1687569399@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZJZCYbgxvzxZxNRg@momjian.us>
References: <168745911769.2239590.6062411529242609290@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
<ZJZCYbgxvzxZxNRg@momjian.us>
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 06:38:37PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> Quote:
>> "<...>When a transaction uses this isolation level, a SELECT query (without
>> a FOR UPDATE/SHARE clause) sees only data committed before the query began;
>> it never sees either uncommitted data or changes committed during query
>> execution by concurrent transactions. <...>"
>> Don't you think this is bad choice of the word, especially while speaking
>> about "commiting transactions" in very same sentence?
> No, the issue is only for committed transactions, not aborted ones.
I think this sentence is formally correct, but it is not very hard to
misparse. Maybe a bit of re-ordering would help? Like
... it never sees either uncommitted data or changes committed by
concurrent transactions during the query's execution.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, bruce@momjian.us, anton.sidyakin@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bad choice of the word in sentence
In-Reply-To: <112752.1687569399@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox