On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> 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.
Yeah, I get it. But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in a different set of situations. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers