Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > One example which makes me a bit confusing is; both master and
> > standby are running fine with track_commit_timestamp disabled,
> > then I enable it only on the master. That is, the value of
> > track_commit_timestamp
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> One example which makes me a bit confusing is; both master and
> standby are running fine with track_commit_timestamp disabled,
> then I enable it only on the master. That is, the value of
> track_commit_timestamp is not the same between maste
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Hopefully the example from the Wiki makes it clear. There has been
> some discussion about whether to link to the Wiki or bring an
> example like that into the documentation; but we usually don't
> link to Wiki pages and the example is somewhat long to include
> in-line in
2015-08-03 4:35 GMT+03:00 Kevin Grittner :
> Dmitry Igrishin wrote:
>
> > I'm confused a bit by example in 13.2.2:
>
> In current docs that is the "Repeatable Read Isolation Level"
> section.
>
> > "For example, even a read only transaction at this level may see a
> > control record updated to sh
