| From: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Angelico <rosuav(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance question: Commit or rollback? |
| Date: | 2011-12-18 03:02:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAKt_ZfvU3__L+Swu3uR_QVib82_HMomqwGNq1xWSH+fH88_W4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
I do not believe there are performance penalties for either. All
commit or rollback does is determine visibility of changes made.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Angelico | 2011-12-18 03:05:59 | Re: Performance question: Commit or rollback? |
| Previous Message | Chris Angelico | 2011-12-18 02:53:00 | Performance question: Commit or rollback? |