Re: Use of term Master/Slave

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina(dot)iqbal(at)target(dot)com> wrote:
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
> > Description:
> >
> > Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
> > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.
>
> Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?

I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't.

> I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use,
> but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which
> fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term
> and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much
> sense.

Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica".
"Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary"
doesn't.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services