Re: replication wordsmithing / clarifications

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:46 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 07:16:43PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > A recent discussion on slack prompted me to read through the
> > high-availability section of the docs, turning in to some suggested
> > changes that hopefully clarify how the various replication options
> > work (specifically around logical and trigger-based solutions). A
> > proposed patch is attached, lmk if you have questions.
>
> A portion of what you are suggesting here is in line with 9e101cf,
> which looks like a good thing. Most of the changes look like
> improvements to me, and here are some comments.
>

+1.

>
> + queries to a designated primary server. Operating on a
> per-tablebasis,
> + the primary server sends data changes (typically) asynchronously to
> the
> + replica node(s). Replica nodes can answer queries while the primary
> is
> Could it be better to use "one or more replica clusters" here?
>

In particular, why is the primary a "server" and the replica a "node"? That
caught my eye for inconsistency -- but changing node to cluster will be
equally inconsistent, just in a different way. Why not just call them both
servers?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>