[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14010604#comment-14010604
]
Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
> "master/slave" is the simplest and most descriptive term to use to describe
> that couchdb can be used in a master/slave setup
This is tautological. What does master/slave communicate that master/replica
does not?
The meaning might be plain. That's not what we're debating. We're debating
whether it makes sense to pick a different word. We have two arguments for
doing so. One is social, and the other is logical. Master/slave is misapplied
to database tech. Master in the sense of a master record is a much better fits.
And you make copies, clones, or replicas of master records.
> I believe that is the intended functionality of a slave database in a
> master/slave setup, it serves as a backup of the master
This is not the case where a a read replica is being used to take reads away
from a master.
> I remain -1 on changing away from the straightforward use of "master/slave"
> to something that is less clear
"Replica" is in clear use throughout the industry. Google search "replica
database" or "read replica" (with quotes) for tens of thousands of hits. Would
you feel more comfortable if we called it a "read replica" or a "RO replica"?
As a reminder: this term appears exactly once in our documentation and is a
list of example setups, so this seems fine to me.
> Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-2248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: public(Regular issues)
> Components: Documentation
> Reporter: Noah Slater
> Priority: Trivial
>
> Inspired by the comments on this PR:
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
> Summary is: `master` and `slave` are racially charged terms, and it would be
> good to avoid them. Django have gone for `primary` and `replica`. But we also
> have to deal with what we now call multi-master setups. I propose "peer to
> peer" as a replacement, or just "peer" if you're describing one node.
> As far as I can tell, the primary work here is the docs. The wiki and any
> supporting material can be updated after.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
