David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 08:56:38AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, so it is "warm slave".
Why isn't it just a "read only slave". Do some systems
have read-only slave databases that can't serve as a warm
standby system as well as this one could?
>> That is technically accurate, given the preceding definitions, but
>> it has disturbing connotations. Enough so, in my view, to merit
>> getting a little more creative in the naming. How about "warm
>> replica"? Other ideas?
>
> Warm Read
> Streamed Copy
Master/Slave Replication and Warm Standby systems are common
enough terms that I can google them or look them up in many
computer science books.
While coming up with creative politically correct euphemisms
might be fun, I hope we stick near terms that other DBAs could
already be familiar with.
ISTM the best way to refer to it formally would be a "Read Only Slave / Warm Standby"
system, even if informally we might have informal
discussions of "just how hot our slaves are" when hot-standby
features get added down the road.
