[sriram_malhar]

That does not always follow. A db designer still has the flexibility to give a client less than serializable/linearizable consistency if the client so wishes.

For example, it is possible for the db to allow direct access to any replica, not just the leader, and if the replica is not part of the quorum, the client will see outdated information. This may be just fine for data that seldom changes, or where a certain amount of staleness is just fine.

[biokoda]

From that point of view yes you are right. There is a ton of nuance in CAP. Usually in these discussions the CAP question is if it is eventually consistent or not.

[thanatos_dem]

That's the problem... There's not a ton of nuance in CAP. CAP has a formal definition and a system is provably at most CP or AP. Other terms that people often associate with CAP is where the nuance comes in. The reality of the matter is that systems claim to be CP or AP, but most have assumptions or bugs that violate it, so in the end, most systems are just P.

Stale reads technically violate the definition of Consistent in CAP. Using raft means unavailability of some subset of nodes can make the entire system unavailable, violating the definition of Availability in CAP.

So the parent comment's suggestion of serving reads from any replica would result in only a partition tolerant system, without any formal availability or consistency guarantees.