Re: language cleanups in code and docs

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: language cleanups in code and docs
Date: 2020-06-17 17:59:26
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYQAaaQOWrL5gt69FXbGU3KAhfCdy=dYPoRtpyfgUZgVA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> 0002: code: s/master/primary/
> 0003: code: s/master/leader/
> 0006: docs: s/master/root/
> 0007: docs: s/master/supervisor/

I'd just like to make the pointer here that there's value in trying to
use different terminology for different things. I picked "leader" and
"worker" for parallel query and tried to use them consistently because
"master" and "slave" were being used widely to refer to physical
replication, and I thought it would be clearer to use something
different, so I did. It's confusing if we use the same word for the
server from which others replicate, the table from which others
inherit, the process which initiates parallelism, and the first
process that is launched across the whole cluster, regardless of
*which* word we use for those things. So, I think there is every
possibility that with careful thought, we can actually make things
clearer, in addition to avoiding the use of terms that are no longer
welcome.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-06-17 18:04:37 Re: Review for GetWALAvailability()
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-06-17 17:26:18 Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY