| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2010-05-12 19:23:27 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikSSDzbLqu1BwiSjtLzEmgFi-uLZXHJasODQnfY@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-12 19:25:14 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-12 19:21:08 | Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts |