Re: language cleanups in code and docs

Hi,

On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > We've removed the use of "slave" from most of the repo (one use
> > remained, included here), but we didn't do the same for master. In the
> > attached series I replaced most of the uses.
> >
> > 0001: tap tests: s/master/primary/
> > Pretty clear cut imo.
>
> Nothing to argue with here as far as I can see. It's a lot of churn, though,
> so the sooner it goes in the better so people can update for the next CF.

Yea, unless somebody protests I'm planning to push this part soon.

> > 0004: code: s/master/$other/
> > This is most of the remaining uses of master in code. A number of
> > references to 'master' in the context of toast, a few uses of 'master
> > copy'. I guess some of these are a bit less clear cut.
>
> Not sure I love authoritative, e.g.
>
> + * fullPageWrites is the authoritative value used by all backends to
>
> and
>
> + * grabbed a WAL insertion lock to read the authoritative value in
>
> Possibly "shared"?

I don't think shared is necessarily correct for all of these. E.g. in
the GetRedoRecPtr() there's two shared values at play, but only one is
"authoritative".

> + * Create the Tcl interpreter subsidiary to pltcl_hold_interp.
>
> Maybe use "worker" here? Not much we can do about the Tcl function name,
> though. It's pretty localized, though, so may not matter much.

I don't think it matters much what we use here

> > 0008: docs: WIP multi-master rephrasing.
> > I like neither the new nor the old language much. I'd welcome input.
>
> Why not multi-primary?

My understanding of primary is that there really can't be two things
that are primary in relation to each other. active/active is probably
the most common term in use besides multi-master.

> One last thing -- are we considering back-patching any/all of this?

I don't think there's a good reason to do so.

Thanks for the look!

Greetings,

Andres Freund