Re: Use of term Master/Slave

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 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.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services