From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: anton.sidyakin@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bad choice of the word in sentence
In-reply-to: <ZJZCYbgxvzxZxNRg@momjian.us>
References: <168745911769.2239590.6062411529242609290@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <ZJZCYbgxvzxZxNRg@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:09:53 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <112751.1687569399.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:16:39 -0400
Message-ID: <112752.1687569399@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/112752.1687569399%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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