Weiping Qu wrote:
> Hello Artur,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> Should it work in a stable version like Postgresql 9.4, since it's enough
> for me and I don't care whether it's 9.6 or 9.5.
> Nevertheless I will try it using 9.4.
Yes, it was introduced by a commit that's in 9.5 and up only, so 9.
Hello Artur,
Thank you for your reply.
Should it work in a stable version like Postgresql 9.4, since it's
enough for me and I don't care whether it's 9.6 or 9.5.
Nevertheless I will try it using 9.4.
Regards,
Weiping
On 01.03.2016 22:04, Artur Zakirov wrote:
Hello, Weiping
It seems that it
Hello, Weiping
It seems that it is a bug. Thank you for report. I guess it will be
fixed soon.
On 01.03.2016 17:36, Weiping Qu wrote:
Dear postgresql general mailing list,
I am currently using the logical decoding feature (version 9.6 I think
as far as I found in the source, wal_level: logic
Dear postgresql general mailing list,
I am currently using the logical decoding feature (version 9.6 I think
as far as I found in the source, wal_level: logical,
max_replication_slot: > 1, track_commit_timestamp: on, I am not sure
whether this will help or not).
Following the online documenta
