On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:57 PM Erikjan Rijkers <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.
Can I make a suggestion here to help ease that problem:
We standardize on "primary" and "replica" but on the first usage of "primary" we have a parenthetical note that "primary" is sometimes called "master" so that terms like multi-master continue to be intuitively intelligible.
thanks,
Erik Rijkers
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
