From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: language cleanups in code and docs |
Date: | 2020-07-08 21:09:42 |
Message-ID: | 362972a7-57d0-eb60-18e2-f9751bc7df6f@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/8/20 4:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've pushed most of the changes.
>
> On 2020-06-16 18:59:25 -0400, David Steele wrote:
>> On 6/16/20 6:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 0008: docs: WIP multi-master rephrasing.
>>>>> I like neither the new nor the old language much. I'd welcome input.
>>>>
>>>> Why not multi-primary?
>>>
>>> My understanding of primary is that there really can't be two things
>>> that are primary in relation to each other.
>>
>> Well, I think the same is true for multi-master and that's pretty common.
>>
>>> active/active is probably
>>> the most common term in use besides multi-master.
>>
>> Works for me and can always be updated later if we come up with something
>> better. At least active-active will be easier to search for.
>
> What do you think about the attached?
I think this phrasing in the original/updated version is pretty awkward:
+ A standby server that cannot be connected to until it is promoted to a
+ primary server is called a ...
How about:
+ A standby server that must be promoted to a primary server before
+ accepting connections is called a ...
Other than that it looks good to me.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-07-08 21:17:56 | Re: language cleanups in code and docs |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2020-07-08 20:41:01 | Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!? |