On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 09:16:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@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 <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
