On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:51 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2024-Mar-14, Shlok Kyal wrote: > > > Andrew Atkinson wrote: > > > > > Anyway, hopefully these examples show “node” and “database” are > > > mixed and perhaps others agree using one consistently might help the > > > goals of the docs. > > > > For me the existing content looks good, I felt let's keep it as it is > > unless others feel differently. > > Actually it's these small terminology glitches that give me pause. If > we're going to have terms that are interchangeable (in this case "node" > and "database"), then they should be always interchangeable, not just in > some unspecified cases. Maybe the idea of using "node" (which sounds > like something that's instance-wide) is wrong for logical replication, > which is necessarily something that happens database-locally. > > Then again, maybe defining "node" as something that exists at a > database-local level when used in the context of logical replication is > sufficient. In that case, it would be better to avoid defining it as a > synonym of "instance". Then the terms are not always interchangeable, > but it's clear when they are and when they aren't. > > "Node: in <glossterm>replication</>, each of the endpoints to which or > from which data is replicated. In the context of physical replication, > each node is an instance. In the context of logical replication, each > node is a database". >
I think node should mean instance for both physical and logical replication, otherwise, it would be confusing. We need both the usages as a particular publication/subscription is defined at the database level but the server on which we define those is referred to as a node/instance. One of the usages pointed out by Andrew: "The subscriber database..." [1] is unclear but I feel we can use node there as well instead of database. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication-subscription.html -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
