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.

I would also not expect a cancelled INSERT statement to INSERT, as
seems would happen by applying the same rules in the
autocommit/implicit commit case here.

--
fdr

In response to

• Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? at 2012-11-01 05:10:46 from Michael Paquier

Responses

• Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? at 2012-11-02 14:51:37 from Fujii Masao
• Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? at 2012-11-02 16:27:32 from Jeff Janes
• Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? at 2012-11-03 21:44:41 from Florian Weimer

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Greg Smith	Date: 2012-11-01 23:08:39
	Subject: RFC: Timing Events
Previous:	From: John Lumby	Date: 2012-11-01 19:41:16
	Subject: FW: [PATCH] Prefetch index pages for B-Tree index scans