From: David Fetter on
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 07:33:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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?

How about origin/subscriber? More descriptive than primary/secondary,
and less tied to a particular model of interaction.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(a)fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter(a)gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

--
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: Tom Lane on
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.

regards, tom lane

--
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: "Joshua D. Drake" on
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 09:37 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 07:33:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > 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?
>
> How about origin/subscriber? More descriptive than primary/secondary,
> and less tied to a particular model of interaction.

Yes but completely out of scope within the market. Master/Slave or
Master/Standby is probably where it needs to be.

Joshua D. Drake



--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering



--
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
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".

--
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

From: Robert Haas on
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?

--
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