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.

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

• Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? at 2012-11-01 19:42:18 from Daniel Farina

Responses

• Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? at 2012-11-02 17:31:54 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Fujii Masao	Date: 2012-11-02 16:48:56
	Subject: the number of pending entries in GIN index with FASTUPDATE=on
Previous:	From: David E. Wheeler	Date: 2012-11-02 16:16:01
	Subject: Re: Extensions Documentation