From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Cc: Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Cc: Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Selena Deckelmann <selena@maxipad.org>
Cc: Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>
Cc: Renee <renee.phillips@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: I'm surprised to see the word master here
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:57:46 -0400
Message-ID: <20191004215746.GF29227@momjian.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191002190455.GM6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <86ee53bd-e016-86c8-3c20-41702c48a12f@2ndquadrant.com>
<20191002060653.GC6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
<CAN1EF+xW6OT=3gWm-40qCC+0KnJ6ag7LcNdYYqKeMjsKfPDioQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABUevEwGmTzk10YDRz6qQiFk_yCZbtje93FXXe90z7iZ_A8CMA@mail.gmail.com>
<611b57f4-be10-5e12-26ea-a2b1940d70bd@2ndquadrant.com>
<e9a72cde5e0078307998597ce12b3ddf@xs4all.nl>
<CAKt_Zfspa=iiFr40fNPE2KYQ5LO588tQCgueS1sExR=k8VB6Cg@mail.gmail.com>
<d94aceeb-6bd9-6668-7cf1-157028a5d254@postgresql.org>
<CABUevEyG2Ax6LJNHdCEih9E7wzKoRFE0egMm+kqVADdR2S8JrA@mail.gmail.com>
<20191002190455.GM6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 03:04:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't agree with this claim. While we could argue about if a hot
> standby is considered "active" or not, the vast majority of the world
> considers "active/active" to actually be where you can use the two
> systems interchangably, including being able to write to both. As such,
> I disagree with this claim- while perhaps you could make an argument
> that it's "technically" correct, it's not how the terms are used in
> practice and saying active/active instead would be well understood by
> the community and industry at large.
With master/standby-replica-slave, it is clear what multi-master is, and
what master/replica is. If you start using active-active, is it
active/replica? The full choices are:
master
primary
active
and
standby
replica
slave
Whatever terms we use, it would be nice to use the same term for the
multi-master as for master/replica. Using active-active and
primary/replica just seems odd. Multi-primary? Seems odd since primary
suggests one, though multiple master seems odd too, i.e., more than one
master. Multi-active seems the most logical, or active-active, but then
active-replica seems odd because it suggests the repica is not active,
i.e. does nothing. Is no clear logical terminology possible?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: bruce@momjian.us, sfrost@snowman.net, magnus@hagander.net, jkatz@postgresql.org, chris.travers@gmail.com, er@xs4all.nl, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, selena@maxipad.org, davecramer@gmail.com, renee.phillips@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: I'm surprised to see the word master here
In-Reply-To: <20191004215746.GF29227@momjian.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox