| From: | <Masahiro(dot)Ikeda(at)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, <Masao(dot)Fujii(at)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Doc: fix the note related to the GUC "synchronized_standby_slots" |
| Date: | 2024-08-27 09:35:24 |
| Message-ID: | OS3PR01MB6390CC5610A8D8E1F1B84B4CB1942@OS3PR01MB6390.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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. Additionally, in the case of asynchronous physical 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.
Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-08-27 09:50:44 | RE: Collect statistics about conflicts in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2024-08-27 09:26:04 | Re: list of acknowledgments for PG17 |