Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 19:01:49
Message-ID: 4BEAFB1D.3020202@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> If so, master/standby would probably work.

+1 for master/standby.

It's worth remembering that a "standby server" might not be actively
connected to a master server. A server that's reading WAL from an
archive backup, for example, can be put to standby mode. "Standby"
covers that case too, better than "slave".

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-05-12 19:04:18 Re: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2010-05-12 19:00:34 Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby