Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iGVbC-0000EE-OV for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 21:58:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iGVaC-0003a8-Tu for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 21:57:52 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iGVaC-0003a1-Jl for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 21:57:52 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iGVaA-0006rI-7a; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 21:57:51 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iGVa6-0006rv-LA; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:57:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:57:46 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Stephen Frost Cc: Magnus Hagander , "Jonathan S. Katz" , Chris Travers , Erikjan Rijkers , Peter Eisentraut , Selena Deckelmann , Dave Cramer , Renee , Pg Docs Subject: Re: I'm surprised to see the word master here Message-ID: <20191004215746.GF29227@momjian.us> References: <86ee53bd-e016-86c8-3c20-41702c48a12f@2ndquadrant.com> <20191002060653.GC6962@tamriel.snowman.net> <611b57f4-be10-5e12-26ea-a2b1940d70bd@2ndquadrant.com> <20191002190455.GM6962@tamriel.snowman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191002190455.GM6962@tamriel.snowman.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk 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 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 +