Re: bad choice of the word in sentence
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: anton.sidyakin@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-06-24T01:20:35Z
Lists: pgsql-docs
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.
Commits
-
Doc: minor wording adjustments in transaction isolation discussion.
- ac1e974221cb 16.0 landed