Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?

From: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?
Date: 2012-11-01 19:42:18
Message-ID: CAAZKuFbZutsaW7SUTcdftv+QzxzyGBZQzkQu4bxieVZu6ZNDRw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group