Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2007 schrieb Nico Sabbi:
> to me the above sentence sounds inconsistent: it's asserting that both
> 1) and 2) apply:
>
> 1) it never sees ... changes committed during query execution by
> concurrent transactions
What this is supposed to mean is that you don't see changes while your own
query runs.
>
> 2) Notice that two successive SELECT commands can see different data,
> even though they
> are within a single transaction, if other transactions commit changes
> during execution
> of the first SELECT
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/