> > > > > 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.
Thanks, I found another ".. without losing data". Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
fix_doc_2.patch
Description: fix_doc_2.patch
