On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
