On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 15:30 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 10:10 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> Currently show pool_nodes SQL command shows: > >> > >> id | hostname | port | status | lb_weight > >> > >> I would like to add info whether the node is primary, master or > >> standby because there's no way to know from exisiting pgpool-II UI. > >> The new column name would be "class" (plese say no, if you have better > >> idea about naming). The value will as follows: > >> > >> Raw mode: > >> "master" or "" > >> > >> Native replication mode: > >> "master" or "slave" > >> > >> Streaming replication mode: > >> "primary" or "standby" > >> > >> Master slave mode with slony: > >> "master" or "slave" > >> > >> Comments or opinions? > > > > I guess it would be better to have the same vocabulary. So I would vote > > "master"/"slave" for each replication mode, and "master" for raw mode. > > Hum. I'd prefer to use "primary" and "standby" to keep consistency > with PostgreSQL's terminology. We might use even another word for 9.1, > for example "synchronous standby". So just only using "master/slave" > would be more confusing and less informative to user, I think.
The same will happen to Slony users: they use "master" and "slave", or "provider"/"subscriber", but never "primary"/"standby". PostgreSQL users use both (but never "provider"/"subscriber"). So, "master"/"slave" is more generic terms than "primary"/"standby". -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list Pgpool-hackers@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
