X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5688B9CF7 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 04:48:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04128-09 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 04:48:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1C78B9CF6 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 04:48:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j114m8gZ009901; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:48:08 -0500 (EST) To: Hashem Masoud Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: "that" missing in "12.2. Transaction Isolation" In-reply-to: <20050130192625.75218.qmail@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050130192625.75218.qmail@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Comments: In-reply-to Hashem Masoud message dated "Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:26:24 -0800" Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:48:08 -0500 Message-ID: <9900.1107233288@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200502/3 X-Sequence-Number: 2836 Hashem Masoud writes: > I don't know if this is the right place for this, but > the documentation of Postgresql 8.1Devel has a > statement > in the section "12.2. Transaction Isolation" that is > lacking "that": > Since the cost of redoing complex transactions may be > significant, this mode is recommended only when > updating transactions contain logic sufficiently > complex that they may give wrong answers in Read > Committed mode. I'm confused --- that seems like perfectly OK English grammar to me. What change are you suggesting exactly? regards, tom lane