Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:20:35 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: anton.sidyakin@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bad choice of the word in sentence
Message-ID: <ZJZE48btc0417MmZ@momjian.us>
References: <168745911769.2239590.6062411529242609290@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <ZJZCYbgxvzxZxNRg@momjian.us>
 <112752.1687569399@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <112752.1687569399@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZJZE48btc0417MmZ%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 09:16:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Sure.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.