RE: Doc: fix the note related to the GUC "synchronized_standby_slots"

> > > > > 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