On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:20 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:06 PM Drouvot, Bertrand > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/13/23 10:35 AM, shveta malik wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:18 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.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.
