> Josh is arguing that we ought to use the term "replication", but it

Actually, no. I'm arguing that we should use the term "standby", since
that term is consistent with how we refer to replica servers throughout
the docs, and the term "recovery" is not.

> seems to me that's just as misleading - maybe moreso, since "recovery"
> is sufficiently a term of art to make you at least think about reading
> the manual, whereas you know (or think you know) what replication is.

Nope.  What it means is that users see stuff relating to "recovery" and
say "oh, that's not right, the replication stuff must be somewhere else".

I've taught a half-dozen classes on PostgreSQL binary replication now,
and the "recovery" nomenclature *always* confuses students.

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to