On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:57 PM Erikjan Rijkers <e...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 2019-10-02 12:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 2019-10-02 10:21, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Exactly. Both might be accurate, but one comes with a lot less > >> baggage. > >> > >> I support a search and replace. > >> > >> I think it'll take a bit more than just a simple "sed script to > >> replace", if that's what you mean. But probably not all that much -- > >> but > >> there can certainly be cases where nearby langaugae also has to be > >> changed to make it work properly. But I have a hard time seeing it as > >> being a *huge* undertaking. > > > > I find this proposal to be dubious and unsubstantiated. Do we need to > > get rid of "multimaster", "postmaster"? > > > > IMHO, hat would seem a bad idea. Let's not take the politicising too > far. > > I would say leave it at abolishing 'slave' (as we have already done). > But that raises an important point, which is that if we remove master entirely from the replication lexicon, then I don't see how multi-master makes sense. If consistency is a goal, postmaster still works but there is no alternative to multi-master in common usage. Can I make a suggestion here to help ease that problem: We standardize on "primary" and "replica" but on the first usage of "primary" we have a parenthetical note that "primary" is sometimes called "master" so that terms like multi-master continue to be intuitively intelligible. > > > thanks, > > Erik Rijkers > > > > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
