On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Michael Paquier
> 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.
In response to
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|