Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:59:24 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, sabrina.iqbal@target.com,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Use of term Master/Slave
Message-ID: <20170801195924.GT1769@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: 
 <CANP8+j+i2z6iCfosgR0CswM-uN5ffQZSVKdeuNs9-vVsfh0_8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170801195301.yqyzifsxv7zq23gp@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AAKkL8+udN7VXUCl"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170801195301.yqyzifsxv7zq23gp@alvherre.pgsql>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org


--AAKkL8+udN7VXUCl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Alvaro, all,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> 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 t=
here
> > > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same m=
anner.
> >=20
> > Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?
>=20
> I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't.
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica".
> "Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary"
> doesn't.

I don't feel like we see much of that terminology being used, whereas
'primary' and 'replica' seem to be more common (particularly since
that's what the big O company uses).

Multi-origin doesn't "feel" any better to me than multi-primary does
(neither is great...), but when it comes to the logical replication side
of things, publishers and subscribers does seem to fit well and so I'm
not entirely sure that we actually need to use the terms "multi-primary"
or "multi-origin"..?

Thanks!

Stephen

--AAKkL8+udN7VXUCl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=S7Ue
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--AAKkL8+udN7VXUCl--