> > > So, will it be okay if we just remove ".. without losing data" from > > > the sentence? Will that avoid the confusion you have? > > Yes. Additionally, it would be better to add notes about data > > consistency after failover for example > > > > Note that data consistency after failover can vary depending on the > > configurations. If "synchronized_standby_slots" is not configured, > > there may be data that only the subscribers hold, even though the new > > primary does > not. > > > > This part can be inferred from the description of synchronized_standby_slots > [1] (See: > This guarantees that logical replication failover slots do not consume > changes until those > changes are received and flushed to corresponding physical standbys. If a > logical > replication connection is meant to switch to a physical standby after the > standby is > promoted, the physical replication slot for the standby should be listed > here.)
OK, it's enough for me just remove ".. without losing data". > > > Additionally, in the case of asynchronous physical replication, > > there remains a risk of data loss for transactions committed on the > > former primary server but have yet to be replicated to the new primary > > server. > > > > This has nothing to do with failover slots. This is a known behavior of > asynchronous > replication, so adding here doesn't make much sense. > > In general, adding more information unrelated to failover slots can confuse > users. OK, I agreed to remove the sentence. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
