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.
