Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
Date: 2010-05-26 23:04:49
Message-ID: AANLkTikiH-XRc6TxmqFodZ_sZ_frbOD4Y6n3Mhe0BSlw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 19:33 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Never user the term "secondary" myself.
>
> I deliberately use "standby" rather than "slave", to differentiate
> between an exact replica and a synchronised copy (respectively).

Fwiw I like the word "replica" but I don't see an obvious choice of
word to pair it with

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message alvherre 2010-05-26 23:09:21 Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-05-26 22:58:06 Re: [spf:guess] Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT