docs: clarify read consistency behavior for db:// remote tables#276
Open
mintlify[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs: clarify read consistency behavior for db:// remote tables#276mintlify[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mintlify[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
brendanclement
approved these changes
Jun 17, 2026
Contributor
Author
|
Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Update the consistency guide so its description of read-your-write behavior matches what the client actually does on
db://remote-table connections.Changes
read_consistency_intervalapplies to alldb://remote-table connections.checkout_latest, andrestore.Context
Triggered by an upstream change that brings read-freshness signaling to the lance-namespace path of
db://connections, so the client behavior described in the docs now holds uniformly for remote tables.