Message-ID: <369954d281392cee3613d76cb8f5887bca548ad9.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Terminology gaps around WAL
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 09:24:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <69e10667fe9835cf3bc7b88741cb48fcaf43fb4c.camel@j-davis.com>
References: <69e10667fe9835cf3bc7b88741cb48fcaf43fb4c.camel@j-davis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/369954d281392cee3613d76cb8f5887bca548ad9.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2026-06-11 at 15:14 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I sometimes struggle to come up with the right term for the following
> concepts, which come up a lot:
>=20
> * The abstract set of WAL records that all originate from a single
> initdb and share a system identifier; including all timelines, and
> including old records that may have been deleted a long time ago.
>=20
> * The "stuff" around that specific set of WAL records, such as running
> instances, warm standbys, PITR'd instances, inactive instances, base
> backups, and WAL archives.
>=20
>=20
> "Database cluster" doesn't fit either of these. The docs define it as
> "a collection of databases that is managed by a single instance of a
> running database server." [1]
>=20
> Do others already have good terms for these concepts? Is it worth
> trying to invent and document some?
>=20
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/creating-cluster.html

"Multiverse" pops into my mind.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe