Subject: Re: Use of term Master/Slave
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, sabrina.iqbal@target.com
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <20170731211348.1449.52678@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CANP8+j+i2z6iCfosgR0CswM-uN5ffQZSVKdeuNs9-vVsfh0_8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
Message-ID: <18fbaf24-6307-63c3-baf8-7fc87ca758f0@commandprompt.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:52:48 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANP8+j+i2z6iCfosgR0CswM-uN5ffQZSVKdeuNs9-vVsfh0_8w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

On 08/01/2017 12:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 31 July 2017 at 22:13,  <sabrina.iqbal@target.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 don't, especially when you take into account cascading replication. If 
we are going to change these terms we may want to look at the old slony 
(and new logical replication) terms such as Origin and Subscriber.

Thanks,

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****


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