Re: bad choice of the word in sentence

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  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