| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "Hot standby"? |
| Date: | 2009-08-11 17:08:39 |
| Message-ID: | 4A81A597.1000806@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter,
I believe we're just copying Oracle's terminology. While that
terminology is not consistent, it is understood by the industry. Oracle
defined their Hot Standby to have both asynchronous and synchronous modes:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/rdb/htdocs/dbms/hotstandby.html
The other industry term which would be understood would be "log-based
replication". Terms we invent would be less likely to be understood,
and users would not get excited about them.
Otherwise, I say we go with "simmering follower". ;-)
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-11 17:11:47 | Re: machine-readable explain output v4 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-08-11 16:52:37 | Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY) |