Hi,
Jim Nasby wrote:
> Note that those terms only make sense if you limit yourself to thinking
> the master is pushing data out to the slave...
I don't really get the "limitation" here. It's all about distinguishing
between master/slave, origin/replica, local/remote - however you want to
call it.
> I think it'd make the most sense if the name reflected whether the
> trigger should be fired by a replication process or not; that way it
> doesn't really matter if it's a master or a slave...
I think you are mixing the meaning of multi-master replication vs. a
per-transaction 'master' (local transaction / origin node of the txn),
which then propagates this transaction to the 'slaves' (remote/replica)
of that transaction. This does not have anything to do with the more
general multi-master vs. single-master replication distinction, as even
in multi-master replication, each transaction must have a 'local' or
'origin' node.
Regards
Markus
