On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:46 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 07:16:43PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > > A recent discussion on slack prompted me to read through the > > high-availability section of the docs, turning in to some suggested > > changes that hopefully clarify how the various replication options > > work (specifically around logical and trigger-based solutions). A > > proposed patch is attached, lmk if you have questions. > > A portion of what you are suggesting here is in line with 9e101cf, > which looks like a good thing. Most of the changes look like > improvements to me, and here are some comments. > +1. > > + queries to a designated primary server. Operating on a > per-tablebasis, > + the primary server sends data changes (typically) asynchronously to > the > + replica node(s). Replica nodes can answer queries while the primary > is > Could it be better to use "one or more replica clusters" here? > In particular, why is the primary a "server" and the replica a "node"? That caught my eye for inconsistency -- but changing node to cluster will be equally inconsistent, just in a different way. Why not just call them both servers? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
