On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:39:20PM -0700, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> This was rather surprising - my synchronous commit was... not
> cancelled. Is this expected behaviour?
I believe it is.
Does the following do the right thing?
SET synchronous_commit='on';
BEGIN;
INSERT INTO data VALUES ('baz');
COMMIT;^c
Oh, and how did you get that cancel in?
Cheers,
David.
>
> d5r5fdj6u5ieml=> begin;
> BEGIN
> d5r5fdj6u5ieml=> set synchronous_commit = 'on';
> SET
> d5r5fdj6u5ieml=> insert into data values ('baz');
> INSERT 0 1
> d5r5fdj6u5ieml=> commit;
> ^CCancel request sent
> WARNING: canceling wait for synchronous replication due to user request
> DETAIL: The transaction has already committed locally, but might not have
> been replicated to the standby.
> COMMIT
> d5r5fdj6u5ieml=> select * from data;
> foo
> -----
> bar
> baz
> (2 rows)
>
> d5r5fdj6u5ieml=> rollback;
> NOTICE: there is no transaction in progress
> ROLLBACK
> d5r5fdj6u5ieml=>
>
>
> --
> Peter van Hardenberg
> San Francisco, California
> "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt." -- Kurt Vonnegut
--
David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
