Re: I'm surprised to see the word master here

Greetings,

* Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:10 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> wrote:
> > On 10/2/19 7:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:57 PM Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl
> > > <mailto:er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2019-10-02 12:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > On 2019-10-02 10:21, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > >> Exactly. Both might be accurate, but one comes with a lot less
> > > >> baggage.
> > > >>
> > > >> I support a search and replace.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think it'll take a bit more than just a simple "sed script to
> > > >> replace", if that's what you mean. But probably not all that much
> > --
> > > >> but
> > > >> there can certainly be cases where nearby langaugae also has to be
> > > >> changed to make it work properly. But I have a hard time seeing
> > it as
> > > >> being a *huge* undertaking.
> > > >
> > > > I find this proposal to be dubious and unsubstantiated. Do we
> > need to
> > > > get rid of "multimaster", "postmaster"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > IMHO, hat would seem a bad idea. Let's not take the politicising too
> > > far.
> > >
> > > I would say leave it at abolishing 'slave' (as we have already done).
> > >
> > >
> > > But that raises an important point, which is that if we remove master
> > > entirely from the replication lexicon, then I don't see how multi-master
> > > makes sense. If consistency is a goal, postmaster still works but there
> > > is no alternative to multi-master in common usage.
> >
> > At various events and tradeshows that include representation from other
> > database systems, the terminology that I hear is "active-active" -- this
> > is not one-off, but from a lot of people. This is also a common term for
> > the major proprietary systems as well. I hear it much more commonly than
> > "multi-master" even.
>
> That has the tiny problem of not being correct though.
>
> A classic primary/standby cluster is *also* active/active. It used to be
> very common to have active/passive clusters -- these were the typical
> shared-disk-mounted-on-one-node-at-a-time style clusters. This indicates
> that the standby node isn't available *at all* until after a
> fail/switchover. So pretty much anything based on our streaming replication
> today is active/active..

I don't agree with this claim. While we could argue about if a hot
standby is considered "active" or not, the vast majority of the world
considers "active/active" to actually be where you can use the two
systems interchangably, including being able to write to both. As such,
I disagree with this claim- while perhaps you could make an argument
that it's "technically" correct, it's not how the terms are used in
practice and saying active/active instead would be well understood by
the community and industry at large.

Thanks,

Stephen