> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:02:25PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>
>> > Oops. Forgot to attach the patch.
>> >
>> >> In the table no bull mark is in "No conflict resolution necessary" row
>> >> for pgpool-II. Actually this is wrong. Pgpool-II does not need
>> >> conflict resolution.
>> >>
>> >>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:02:25PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > Oops. Forgot to attach the patch.
> >
> >> In the table no bull mark is in "No conflict resolution necessary" row
> >> for pgpool-II. Actually this is wrong. Pgpool-II does not need
> >> conflict resolution.
> >>
> >> Also in th
> Oops. Forgot to attach the patch.
>
>> In the table no bull mark is in "No conflict resolution necessary" row
>> for pgpool-II. Actually this is wrong. Pgpool-II does not need
>> conflict resolution.
>>
>> Also in the same page "Pgpool-II has this capability." (here "this"
>> means "Multiple-
Oops. Forgot to attach the patch.
> In the table no bull mark is in "No conflict resolution necessary" row
> for pgpool-II. Actually this is wrong. Pgpool-II does not need
> conflict resolution.
>
> Also in the same page "Pgpool-II has this capability." (here "this"
> means "Multiple-Server Paral
In the table no bull mark is in "No conflict resolution necessary" row
for pgpool-II. Actually this is wrong. Pgpool-II does not need
conflict resolution.
Also in the same page "Pgpool-II has this capability." (here "this"
means "Multiple-Server Parallel Query Execution") This used to be true
long
