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

Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, 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 17:31:54
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2 November 2012 16:27, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

That is correct.

It is possible to cancel the COMMIT, but only until it happens.

If people want full two phase commit, that option exists also.

 Simon Riggs         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Shaun ThomasDate: 2012-11-02 17:51:21
Subject: Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2012-11-02 17:01:17
Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group