From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | anton(dot)sidyakin(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: bad choice of the word in sentence |
Date: | 2023-06-24 01:16:39 |
Message-ID: | 112752.1687569399@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-06-24 01:20:35 | Re: bad choice of the word in sentence |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-06-24 01:09:53 | Re: bad choice of the word in sentence |