On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 03:04:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> 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.
With master/standby-replica-slave, it is clear what multi-master is, and
what master/replica is. If you start using active-active, is it
active/replica? The full choices are:
master
primary
active
and
standby
replica
slave
Whatever terms we use, it would be nice to use the same term for the
multi-master as for master/replica. Using active-active and
primary/replica just seems odd. Multi-primary? Seems odd since primary
suggests one, though multiple master seems odd too, i.e., more than one
master. Multi-active seems the most logical, or active-active, but then
active-replica seems odd because it suggests the repica is not active,
i.e. does nothing. Is no clear logical terminology possible?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
