Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 09:16:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 t
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 09:16:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 06:38:37PM +, 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 co
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 06:38:37PM +, 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
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 06:38:37PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/transaction-iso.html
> Description:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-C
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/transaction-iso.html
Description:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-COMMITTED
Quote:
"<...>When a transaction uses this isolation level, a SELECT quer
