Some of my code involves transactions which will not have significant effect on the database. It might be a read-only transaction (possibly declared as one, but possibly not), or perhaps a completely empty transaction - I have a framework that will always open a transaction, then call on other code, and then complete the transaction at the bottom. In these instances, is it better to commit or to rollback? Are there performance penalties to either option? Similarly, what about when the first action in a transaction puts it in an error state? Is it better to commit (which should have no effect - nothing succeeded) or to roll back? I could test these things experimentally, but am afraid I'll skew my results based on the data I use. Hoping that somebody here knows for certain - there does seem to be a wealth of expertise here. Chris Angelico -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
