Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Isn't SSI *already* forcing a new acquisition of an LWLock during > commits of read-only transactions that aren't using SSI? During COMMIT PREPARED there is one. We could avoid that by storing the transaction isolation level in the persistent data for a prepared statement, but that seems inappropriate for 9.1 at this point, and it's hard to be sure that would be a net win. Otherwise I don't *think* there's an extra LW lock for a non-serializable transaction (whether or not read-only). Do you see one I'm not remembering? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
