Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
Date: 2010-05-12 19:00:34
Message-ID: 1273690834.308.1053.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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).

I use the terms "primary" and "master" more freely but generally try to
use primary/standby and master/slave together. If you wanted to move to
just one, it would be "master", though we'd need to have a good
explanation of "primary" in the index.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-05-12 19:01:49 Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
Previous Message David Christensen 2010-05-12 18:59:49 Re: Tags missing from GIT mirror?