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