Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Isn't SSI *already* forcing a new acquisition of an LWLock during
> commits of read-only transactions that aren't using SSI?
During COMMIT PREPARED there is one. We could avoid that by storing
the transaction isolation level in the persistent data for a
prepared statement, but that seems inappropriate for 9.1 at this
point, and it's hard to be sure that would be a net win. Otherwise
I don't *think* there's an extra LW lock for a non-serializable
transaction (whether or not read-only). Do you see one I'm not
remembering?
-Kevin