Subject: Re: Add publisher and subscriber to glossary documentation.

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:26:40 +0100

Hello

On 2024-Feb-12, Shlok Kyal wrote:

> There are several places where publisher and subscriber terms are used
> across the documentation. But the publisher and subscriber were
> missing in the documentation. I felt this should be added in the
> glossary.

I agree, but let's wordsmith those definitions first.

Should these be "publisher node" and "subscriber node" instead?  Do we
want to define the term "node"?  I think in everyday conversations we
use "node" quite a lot, so maybe we do need an entry for it.  (Maybe
just <glossssee otherterm="instance"> suffices, plus add under instance
"also called a node".)

+   <glossterm>Publisher</glossterm>
+   <glossdef>
+    <para>
+      A node where publication is defined.
+      It replicates the publication changes to the subscriber node.

Apart from deciding what to do with "node", what are "changes"?  This
doesn't seem very specific.

+   <glossterm>Subscriber</glossterm>
+   <glossdef>
+    <para>
+     A node where subscription is defined.
+     It subscribe to one or more publications on a publisher node and pull the data
+     from the publications they subscribe to.

Same issues as above, plus there are some grammar issues.

I think these definitions should use the term "logical replication",
which we don't currently define.  We do have "replication" where we
provide an overview of "logical replication".  Maybe that's enough, but
we should consider whether we want a separate definition of logical
replication (I'm leaning towards not having one, but it's worth asking.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"But static content is just dynamic content that isn't moving!"
                http://smylers.hates-software.com/2007/08/15/fe244d0c.html