Robert DiFalco wrote:
> Is there any difference between calling rollback or commit on a
> transaction that did not alter data? For example, not a read-only
> transaction but a transaction that only performed read-only selects. Any
> difference in performance between calling rollback or commit? I know
> they are functionally the same at the high level.
The only thing I could think of was possibly rollback would leave open
transaction and its read view if you are running in REPEATABLE READ
isolation mode, whereas commit begins a new transaction and discards the
read view. But I just tested that, and both commands start a new
transaction and discard the read view.
That's a long way of saying they are functionally equivalent as far as I
know, as long as there are no changes to discard.