On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:16 AM <masahiro.ik...@nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > > 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". >
The next line related to asynchronous replication is also not required. See attached. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
fix_doc_1.patch
Description: Binary data
