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.
In response to
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|