On 2 November 2012 16:27, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Btw, I believe that this is correct behavior, because in Peter's case the
>>> manual command gets the priority on the value of synchronous_commit, no?
>>> If anybody thinks that I am wrong, feel free to argue on that of course...
>> The idea of canceling a COMMIT statement causing a COMMIT seems pretty
>> strange to me.
> It would be. But you are not cancelling the commit, you are
> *attempting* to cancel the commit. The message you receive explains
> to what extend your attempt succeeded.
That is correct.
It is possible to cancel the COMMIT, but only until it happens.
If people want full two phase commit, that option exists also.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Shaun Thomas||Date: 2012-11-02 17:51:21|
|Subject: Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?|
|Previous:||From: Alexander Korotkov||Date: 2012-11-02 17:01:17|
|Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points|