| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? |
| Date: | 2012-11-02 18:16:03 |
| Message-ID: | 50940DE3.5080003@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/31/12 9:39 PM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> This was rather surprising - my synchronous commit was... not cancelled.
> Is this expected behaviour?
>
> 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)
Did the inserted row also arrive at the standby?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Gerber | 2012-11-02 18:25:33 | Unresolved error 0xC0000409 on Windows Server |
| Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2012-11-02 17:51:21 | Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? |