Re: Use of term Master/Slave

Alvaro, all,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> 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.

I don't feel like we see much of that terminology being used, whereas
'primary' and 'replica' seem to be more common (particularly since
that's what the big O company uses).

Multi-origin doesn't "feel" any better to me than multi-primary does
(neither is great...), but when it comes to the logical replication side
of things, publishers and subscribers does seem to fit well and so I'm
not entirely sure that we actually need to use the terms "multi-primary"
or "multi-origin"..?

Thanks!

Stephen