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
