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