Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

On 13 October 2016 at 10:53, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:30:59 +0530
> Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>
>> wrote:
>
>> Okay but for me consistency is also important. Since we agree to
>> disagree on some of the comments and others have not expressed any
>> problem I am moving it to committer.
>
>
> Thank you for your efforts improving my patch

I've found various spelling and grammatical issues in the docs
section, which I've corrected. I've attached a revised patch with
these changes.

One thing I'm wondering is whether we should be using the term
"master", as that's usually paired with "slave", whereas, nowadays,
there's a tendency to refer to them as "primary" and "standby". I
know we use "master" in some other places in the documentation, but it
seems inconsistent to have "master" as a parameter value, but then
having "primary" used in some other configuration parameters.

I'd also avoid referring to "the library", and just describe what
happens without making reference to what's making it happen.

Regards

Thom