Hi Amit, On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:20 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... > > > > Thinking about this further, using quorum settings for > > synchronized_standby_slots can/will certainly result in at least one > > sync standby lagging behind the logical replica, making it probably > > impossible to continue with the existing logical replication setup > > after a failover to the standby that lags behind. Here is what I am > > mean: > > > > But won't that be true even for synchronous_standby_names? I think in > the case of quorum, it is the responsibility of the failover solution > to select the most recent synced standby among all the standby's > specified in synchronous_standby_names. Similarly here before failing > over logical subscriber to one of physical standby, the failover tool > needs to ensure it is switching over to the synced replica. We have > given steps in the docs [1] that could be used to identify the replica > where the subscriber can switchover. Will that address your concern? > +1, the job of failover orchestration is to ensure the new primary is caught up at least until the quorum LSN. Otherwise, it can be a durability issue where users see missing committed transactions. > BTW, I have also suggested this idea in thread [2]. I don't recall all > the ideas/points discussed in that thread but it would be good to > check that thread for any alternative ideas and points raised, so that > we don't miss anything. > Thanks for sharing the links, the approach is similar. DEFAULT to SAME_AS_SYNCREP_STANDBYS is an interesting option. I like the idea of avoiding duplicate lists unless the user wants to maintain a separate list. Thanks, Satya
