Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vg3hW-00019t-LY for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:27:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vg3hV-0000Kn-Nd for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:27:33 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vg3hV-0000Kh-4V for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:27:33 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vg3hO-0007Wh-Ko for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:27:32 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAC2RFe0021329; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:27:15 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: MVCC snapshot timing In-reply-to: <20131112021954.GD15562@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> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:19:54 -0500" Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:27:15 -0500 Message-ID: <21328.1384223235@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs