Re: Use of term Master/Slave

> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> 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).

+1

> 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"..?

For the type of things logical replication does, publisher / subscriber does seem to be the accepted terminology. We just need to be careful in our own documentation based on the LISTEN / NOTIFY functionality that also has similar subscribe / publish terminology in the industry.

Jonathan