From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
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: | 2010-05-13 00:54:49 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik2YLK6Fhd8x5kcVx8ZdE9sAJkWVYObZ2epT6zy@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> > The server's messages and the documentation uses all of these terms in
>> > mixed ways. Maybe we could decide on some preferred terminology and
>> > adjust the existing texts. Ideas?
>>
>> Primary/secondary seem like a poor choice because they're such generic
>> terms. Master/slave is the common terminology for this, I think,
>> though some might object on grounds of political incorrectness.
>> If so, master/standby would probably work.
>
> I have always been unclear if a slave indicates it accepts read-only
> queries, i.e. are slave and standby interchangable?
We had a long discussion of this topic last summer:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00870.php
I still think Peter's right, but there were contrary opinions. Still,
the discussion is an interesting read.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-13 01:01:04 | recovery getting interrupted is not so unusual as it used to be |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-13 00:48:41 | Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |