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

Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2012-11-02 16:27:32
Message-ID: CAMkU=1wjMKmtuxQ5E-+w7nE4B0B6rXGjPUvhkdhaZ9-5NtOvaA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

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