Hi, Marcus,
Nörder-Tuitje wrote:
> afaik, this should be completely neglectable.
>
> starting a transaction implies write access. if there is none, You do
> not need to think about transactions, because there are none.
Hmm, I always thought that the transaction will be opened at the first
statement, because there _could_ be a parallel writing transaction
started later.
> postgres needs to schedule the writing transactions with the reading
> ones, anyway.
As I said, there usually are no writing transactions on the same database.
Btw, there's another setting that might make a difference:
Having ACID-Level SERIALIZABLE or READ COMMITED?
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
