Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:20 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:06 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/13/23 10:35 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:18 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > Code:
> >
> > + True if this logical slot is enabled to be synced to the physical standbys
> > + so that logical replication is not blocked after failover. Always false
> > + for physical slots.
> >
> > Not sure "not blocked" is the right wording. "can be resumed from the new primary" maybe?
> >
>
> Yeah, your proposed wording sounds better. Also, I think we should
> document the impact of not doing so because I think the replication
> can continue after failover but it may lead to data inconsistency.
>
> BTW, I noticed that the code for Create Subscription is updated but
> not the corresponding docs. By looking at other parameters like
> password_required, streaming, two_phase where true or false indicates
> whether that option is enabled or not, I am thinking about whether
> enable_failover is an appropriate name for this option. The other
> option name that comes to mind is 'failover' where true indicates that
> the corresponding subscription will be enabled for failover. What do
> you think?

+1. 'failover' seems more in sync with other options' names.

> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.