| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2012-11-01 19:42:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAAZKuFbZutsaW7SUTcdftv+QzxzyGBZQzkQu4bxieVZu6ZNDRw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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.
--
fdr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2012-11-01 23:08:39 | RFC: Timing Events |
| Previous Message | John Lumby | 2012-11-01 19:41:16 | FW: [PATCH] Prefetch index pages for B-Tree index scans |