Prev: [HACKERS] primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
Next: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts
From: Bruce Momjian on 12 May 2010 17:44
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(a)gmx.net> writes:
> > The server's messages and the documentation uses all of these terms in
> > mixed ways. Maybe we could decide on some preferred terminology and
> > adjust the existing texts. Ideas?
>
> Primary/secondary seem like a poor choice because they're such generic
> terms. Master/slave is the common terminology for this, I think,
> though some might object on grounds of political incorrectness.
> If so, master/standby would probably work.

I have always been unclear if a slave indicates it accepts read-only
queries, i.e. are slave and standby interchangable?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Robert Haas on 12 May 2010 20:54
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(a)gmx.net> writes:
>> > The server's messages and the documentation uses all of these terms in
>> > mixed ways.  Maybe we could decide on some preferred terminology and
>> > adjust the existing texts.  Ideas?
>>
>> Primary/secondary seem like a poor choice because they're such generic
>> terms.  Master/slave is the common terminology for this, I think,
>> though some might object on grounds of political incorrectness.
>> If so, master/standby would probably work.
>
> I have always been unclear if a slave indicates it accepts read-only
> queries, i.e. are slave and standby interchangable?

We had a long discussion of this topic last summer:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00870.php

I still think Peter's right, but there were contrary opinions. Still,
the discussion is an interesting read.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Heikki Linnakangas on 26 May 2010 17:44
On 12/05/10 22:23, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If so, master/standby would probably work.
>>
>> +1 for master/standby.
>>
>> It's worth remembering that a "standby server" might not be actively
>> connected to a master server. A server that's reading WAL from an
>> archive backup, for example, can be put to standby mode. "Standby"
>> covers that case too, better than "slave".
>
> So does this mean we should rename primary_conninfo?

Yes, I think it does. I'll change it tomorrow, barring objections or
someone else changing it first.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: [HACKERS] primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
Next: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts