| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | yanliang lei <msdnchina(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Replica vs standby |
| Date: | 2023-09-06 07:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | d1896085-05e6-5f22-041c-658e3f3313c9@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 06.09.23 03:42, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> There are other cases in our docs where we call something a standby and
> mean only a physical standby/replica. Should these be clarified?
When "hot standby" was added, I argued that it's not really a standby if
it's hot. The response was that this is sort of a standard industry
term, and we should read "standby" to be equivalent to "replica". Which
I think is good enough. Obviously, the term "standby" is baked into
many user-visible interfaces, so it's not clear whether there is a clean
path to improving anything here.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-09-06 14:34:24 | Re: Replica vs standby |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-09-06 01:42:16 | Replica vs standby |