On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: > 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.
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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
