For portability's sake commit successful transactions and rollback those
that fail.
Rick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/25/2005 05:53:11 PM:
> "Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Probably, turning fsync off would be helpful, since you know it is
> > read-only.
>
> Wouldn't make any diff
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Probably, turning fsync off would be helpful, since you know it is
> read-only.
Wouldn't make any difference: a transaction that hasn't modified the
database doesn't bother to write any commit/abort WAL record at all.
regards, to
eral
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] rollback vs. commit for closing read-only
> transaction
>
> David Parker wrote:
> > If an application transaction is known to be read-only, is there any
> > reason to prefer COMMIT or ROLLBACK for closing that transaction?
Would
> > the
David Parker wrote:
> If an application transaction is known to be read-only, is there any
> reason to prefer COMMIT or ROLLBACK for closing that transaction? Would
> there be any performance difference between the two commands?
Doesn't matter.
--
Bruce Momjian| http:/
If an
application transaction is known to be read-only, is there any reason to
prefer COMMIT or ROLLBACK for closing that transaction? Would there be any
performance difference between the two commands?
-
DAP--Da
