| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiro(dot)Ikeda(at)nttdata(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Masao(dot)Fujii(at)nttdata(dot)com, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Doc: fix the note related to the GUC "synchronized_standby_slots" |
| Date: | 2024-08-26 09:37:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+7b7wSHgvNzDirrQ6C80pq8LyOEP9P5C7H0UMRnYAA4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 1:30 PM <Masahiro(dot)Ikeda(at)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>
> When I read the following documentation related to the "synchronized_standby_slots", I misunderstood that data loss would not occur in the case of synchronous physical replication. However, this is incorrect (see reproduce.txt).
>
> > Note that in the case of asynchronous 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.
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/logical-replication-failover.html
>
> Am I missing something?
>
It seems part of the paragraph: "Note that in the case of asynchronous
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." is a bit confusing. Will it make things
clear to me if we remove that part?
I am keeping a few others involved in this feature development in Cc.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-08-26 09:46:04 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |
| Previous Message | Jim Jones | 2024-08-26 09:32:02 | Re: [PATCH] Add CANONICAL option to xmlserialize |