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.
regards, tom lane
