On Sunday 08 June 2008 20:12:15 Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > and i'm sure no one is against that idea, but you're never going to be > > able to match the performance of just avoiding the check. > > We'll never be able to match the performance of not having transactions, > either, but the community has never for a moment considered having a > "no transactions" mode. >
it's unclear what a "no transaction" mode would mean, but I'd be willing to guess some people have consider aspects of it (we've just never had agreement) -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers