On 10/2/19 7:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:57 PM Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl > <mailto:er@xs4all.nl>> wrote: > > On 2019-10-02 12:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 2019-10-02 10:21, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Exactly. Both might be accurate, but one comes with a lot less > >> baggage. > >> > >> I support a search and replace. > >> > >> I think it'll take a bit more than just a simple "sed script to > >> replace", if that's what you mean. But probably not all that much -- > >> but > >> there can certainly be cases where nearby langaugae also has to be > >> changed to make it work properly. But I have a hard time seeing it as > >> being a *huge* undertaking. > > > > I find this proposal to be dubious and unsubstantiated. Do we need to > > get rid of "multimaster", "postmaster"? > > > > IMHO, hat would seem a bad idea. Let's not take the politicising too > far. > > I would say leave it at abolishing 'slave' (as we have already done). > > > But that raises an important point, which is that if we remove master > entirely from the replication lexicon, then I don't see how multi-master > makes sense. If consistency is a goal, postmaster still works but there > is no alternative to multi-master in common usage.
At various events and tradeshows that include representation from other database systems, the terminology that I hear is "active-active" -- this is not one-off, but from a lot of people. This is also a common term for the major proprietary systems as well. I hear it much more commonly than "multi-master" even.
That has the tiny problem of not being correct though.
A classic primary/standby cluster is *also* active/active. It used to be very common to have active/passive clusters -- these were the typical shared-disk-mounted-on-one-node-at-a-time style clusters. This indicates that the standby node isn't available *at all* until after a fail/switchover. So pretty much anything based on our streaming replication today is active/active..
