Re: Use of term Master/Slave

On 01.08.2017 21:41, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.

We are not only missing a consensus about the terms noted here. There is
a bunch of terms where it is unclear which one is the 'official' or
'preferred' one. Two additional examples:
WAL / transaction logfile / XLOG file / log segment file / WAL
segment file
Log record / log entry
And there is a second problem: We have a common understanding of terms
like "cluster" or "database". But people coming from other DBMS may have
a different understanding.

A new PG user easily gets lost in the "term-jungle" used in our
documentation, in PG related books, blogs, and training material.

My proposal is to add an additional appendix to our documentation, where
fundamental terms and there meaning for the PG community are defined in
short and clear words (after we have found a consensus about them).

Jürgen Purtz