From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(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 01:20:35 |
Message-ID: | ZJZE48btc0417MmZ@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 09:16:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Sure.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-06-24 02:50:20 | Re: Change "two" to "three" for decades of development in history |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-24 01:16:39 | Re: bad choice of the word in sentence |