Re: "Hot standby"?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Mark Mielke<mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
> On 08/11/2009 09:56 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, so it is "warm slave".
>
>
>
> That is technically accurate, given the preceding definitions, but it
> has disturbing connotations. Enough so, in my view, to merit getting
> a little more creative in the naming. How about "warm replica"?
> Other ideas?
>
> I agree that the present moniker misleads.
>
> I remember this debate from 6 months ago. :-)
>
> I prefer not to try and fit square pegs into round holes. Streaming
> replication sounds like the best description. It may not be the keywords
> that newbies are looking for, but too bad for them. Calling it something
> different than what it is, just so that people who don't understand why it
> is wrong will have something that approximates the right understanding, is
> not a just cause. :-)

Uhm, I think you are confused.

Hot Standby = Allow read-only queries on a PostgreSQL server during
archive recovery
Synchronous (or Streaming) Replication = Allow WAL to be streamed on a
byte level rather than copied file-by-file

Hot Standby is not any sort of replication.

...Robert