On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> > The server's messages and the documentation uses all of these terms in >> > mixed ways. Maybe we could decide on some preferred terminology and >> > adjust the existing texts. Ideas? >> >> Primary/secondary seem like a poor choice because they're such generic >> terms. Master/slave is the common terminology for this, I think, >> though some might object on grounds of political incorrectness. >> If so, master/standby would probably work. > > I have always been unclear if a slave indicates it accepts read-only > queries, i.e. are slave and standby interchangable?
We had a long discussion of this topic last summer: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00870.php I still think Peter's right, but there were contrary opinions. Still, the discussion is an interesting read. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
