On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 01:31:34PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> He enforced a manual cancel from client with something like Ctrl+C to
> cancel query.
> In this case you do not wait for the slave to confirm that the commit
> information has been flushed on its disk.
I guess my disk subsystem (it's a consumer-grade DAS SSD) doesn't have
enough latency for my reflexes to hit ^C fast enough. Any way to
inject this fault deterministically?
Cheers,
David.
--
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
