Simon Riggs wrote: > On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <[email protected]> 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 think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't. > 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. Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica". "Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary" doesn't. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
