Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
Date: 2010-05-12 17:50:26
Message-ID: 1273686626.8624.2894.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 09:37 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 07:33:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > The server's messages and the documentation uses all of these terms in
> > mixed ways. Maybe we could decide on some preferred terminology and
> > adjust the existing texts. Ideas?
>
> How about origin/subscriber? More descriptive than primary/secondary,
> and less tied to a particular model of interaction.

Yes but completely out of scope within the market. Master/Slave or
Master/Standby is probably where it needs to be.

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2010-05-12 18:01:51 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-05-12 17:44:07 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add PGFILEDESC description to Makefiles for all /contrib