| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby |
| Date: | 2010-05-26 21:44:28 |
| Message-ID: | 4BFD963C.4080906@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/05/10 22:23, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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".
>
> So does this mean we should rename primary_conninfo?
Yes, I think it does. I'll change it tomorrow, barring objections or
someone else changing it first.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Selena Deckelmann | 2010-05-26 21:52:33 | 9.0 Open Items: Code and Documentation sections |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-05-26 21:38:36 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |