Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > 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?
>
> Primary/secondary seem like a poor choice because they're such generic
> terms. Master/slave is the common terminology for this, I think,
> though some might object on grounds of political incorrectness.
> If so, master/standby would probably work.

I have always been unclear if a slave indicates it accepts read-only
queries, i.e. are slave and standby interchangable?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com