On Friday, March 15, 2024 10:45 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 02:22:44AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Since the standby_slot_names patch has been committed, I am attaching > > the last doc patch for review. > > > > Thanks! > > 1 === > > + continue subscribing to publications now on the new primary server > without > + any data loss. > > I think "without any data loss" should be re-worded in this context. Data > loss in > the sense "data committed on the primary and not visible on the subscriber in > case of failover" can still occurs (in case synchronous replication is not > used). > > 2 === > > + If the result (<literal>failover_ready</literal>) of both above steps is > + true, existing subscriptions will be able to continue without data loss. > + </para> > > I don't think that's true if synchronous replication is not used. Say, > > - synchronous replication is not used > - primary is not able to reach the standby anymore and standby_slot_names is > set > - new data is inserted into the primary > - then not replicated to subscriber (due to standby_slot_names) > > Then I think the both above steps will return true but data would be lost in > case > of failover.
Thanks for the comments, attach the new version patch which reworded the above places. Best Regards, Hou zj
v2-0001-Document-the-steps-to-check-if-the-standby-is-rea.patch
Description: v2-0001-Document-the-steps-to-check-if-the-standby-is-rea.patch
