Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:10 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> > wrote: > > On 10/2/19 7:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:57 PM Erikjan Rijkers <e...@xs4all.nl > > > <mailto: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. > > > > At various events and tradeshows that include representation from other > > database systems, the terminology that I hear is "active-active" -- this > > is not one-off, but from a lot of people. This is also a common term for > > the major proprietary systems as well. I hear it much more commonly than > > "multi-master" even. > > That has the tiny problem of not being correct though. > > A classic primary/standby cluster is *also* active/active. It used to be > very common to have active/passive clusters -- these were the typical > shared-disk-mounted-on-one-node-at-a-time style clusters. This indicates > that the standby node isn't available *at all* until after a > fail/switchover. So pretty much anything based on our streaming replication > today is active/active..
I don't agree with this claim. While we could argue about if a hot standby is considered "active" or not, the vast majority of the world considers "active/active" to actually be where you can use the two systems interchangably, including being able to write to both. As such, I disagree with this claim- while perhaps you could make an argument that it's "technically" correct, it's not how the terms are used in practice and saying active/active instead would be well understood by the community and industry at large. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
