Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vgc9H-0003LE-0I for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:14:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vgc9G-0004Oo-Fk for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:14:30 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vgc9F-0004NS-4Q for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:14:29 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vgc97-0005N9-Ru for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:14:28 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Vgc95-0001rT-5G; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:14:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:14:19 -0500 From: Bruce Momjian To: Tom Lane Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: MVCC snapshot timing Message-ID: <20131113151419.GC24549@momjian.us> References: <20131111175737.GA15562@momjian.us> <13024.1384202385@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20131111205833.GC15562@momjian.us> <20331.1384221575@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20131112021954.GD15562@momjian.us> <21328.1384223235@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20131112024609.GG15562@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131112024609.GG15562@momjian.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:46:09PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:27:15PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:59:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> 'Statement' might work. > > > > > OK, updated patch attached. Is "statement" too vague here? SQL > > > statement? query? > > > > "SQL statement" might be a good idea in the first sentence, but > > I don't think you need to repeat it in the second. > > > > What's bothering me about this wording is that you're talking about > > statements and then suddenly reference transactions (as being "those > > other things messing with your data"). This seems weirdly asymmetric, > > since after all you could equally well be the one messing with their > > data. > > Yes, that bugged me too, but then I realized that you only see the > changes from a transaction when it completes, not from each statement, > e.g. you can never see changes between statements of a multi-statement > transaction. > > I used "SQL statement" in the updated, attached patch. Applied. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs