| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-11-02 16:48:56 | the number of pending entries in GIN index with FASTUPDATE=on |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2012-11-02 16:16:01 | Re: Extensions Documentation |