On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iq...@target.com> wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html > Description: > > Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.
Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive? I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use, but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much sense. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
