Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
Date
Msg-id AANLkTikSSDzbLqu1BwiSjtLzEmgFi-uLZXHJasODQnfY@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If so, master/standby would probably work.
>
> +1 for master/standby.
>
> It's worth remembering that a "standby server" might not be actively
> connected to a master server. A server that's reading WAL from an
> archive backup, for example, can be put to standby mode. "Standby"
> covers that case too, better than "slave".

So does this mean we should rename primary_conninfo?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful