Thread: [DOCS] Use of term Master/Slave
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html Description: Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.
Hi, On 2017-07-31 21:13:48 +0000, sabrina.iqbal@target.com wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html > Description: > > Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. Yea, I think we should be more careful from now on. I think several people already try, but it's not been a concerted effort so far. I'm not convinced it's a good idea to change old release notes though. - Andres
On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html > Description: > > Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive? I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use, but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much sense. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 08/01/2017 12:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote: >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html >> Description: >> >> Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there >> are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. > > Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive? I don't, especially when you take into account cascading replication. If we are going to change these terms we may want to look at the old slony (and new logical replication) terms such as Origin and Subscriber. Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us ***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
Simon Riggs wrote: > On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html > > Description: > > > > Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there > > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. > > Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive? I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't. > I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use, > but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which > fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term > and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much > sense. Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica". "Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary" doesn't. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Alvaro, all, * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote: > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html > > > Description: > > > > > > Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there > > > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. > > > > Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive? > > I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't. > > > I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use, > > but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which > > fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term > > and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much > > sense. > > Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica". > "Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary" > doesn't. I don't feel like we see much of that terminology being used, whereas 'primary' and 'replica' seem to be more common (particularly since that's what the big O company uses). Multi-origin doesn't "feel" any better to me than multi-primary does (neither is great...), but when it comes to the logical replication side of things, publishers and subscribers does seem to fit well and so I'm not entirely sure that we actually need to use the terms "multi-primary" or "multi-origin"..? Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > Alvaro, all, > > * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote: >>>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >>>> >>>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html >>>> Description: >>>> >>>> Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there >>>> are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. >>> >>> Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive? >> >> I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't. >> >>> I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use, >>> but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which >>> fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term >>> and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much >>> sense. >> >> Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica". >> "Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary" >> doesn't. > > I don't feel like we see much of that terminology being used, whereas > 'primary' and 'replica' seem to be more common (particularly since > that's what the big O company uses). +1 > Multi-origin doesn't "feel" any better to me than multi-primary does > (neither is great...), but when it comes to the logical replication side > of things, publishers and subscribers does seem to fit well and so I'm > not entirely sure that we actually need to use the terms "multi-primary" > or "multi-origin"..? For the type of things logical replication does, publisher / subscriber does seem to be the accepted terminology. We justneed to be careful in our own documentation based on the LISTEN / NOTIFY functionality that also has similar subscribe/ publish terminology in the industry. Jonathan
On 1 August 2017 at 09:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote: > Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there > are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. Another alternative I've seen in different fields is "manager" and "agent".
On 01.08.2017 21:41, Simon Riggs wrote: > Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive? > > I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use, > but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which > fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term > and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much > sense. We are not only missing a consensus about the terms noted here. There is a bunch of terms where it is unclear which one is the 'official' or 'preferred' one. Two additional examples: WAL / transaction logfile / XLOG file / log segment file / WAL segment file Log record / log entry And there is a second problem: We have a common understanding of terms like "cluster" or "database". But people coming from other DBMS may have a different understanding. A new PG user easily gets lost in the "term-jungle" used in our documentation, in PG related books, blogs, and training material. My proposal is to add an additional appendix to our documentation, where fundamental terms and there meaning for the PG community are defined in short and clear words (after we have found a consensus about them). Jürgen Purtz
On 8/1/17 13:33, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-07-31 21:13:48 +0000, sabrina.iqbal@target.com wrote: >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html >> Description: >> >> Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there >> are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. > > Yea, I think we should be more careful from now on. I think several > people already try, but it's not been a concerted effort so far. Here is a patch to remove remaining uses of "slave" in replication contexts. Remaining uses are in the Tcl API, which we can't do anything about, and in a plpgsql test, where it is used for foreign key relationships. (I'm not sure what the use in the dblink test that I patched was meant for, so I just removed it.) Old release notes are not touched. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment
On 8/7/17 17:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/1/17 13:33, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-07-31 21:13:48 +0000, sabrina.iqbal@target.com wrote: >>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >>> >>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html >>> Description: >>> >>> Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there >>> are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. >> >> Yea, I think we should be more careful from now on. I think several >> people already try, but it's not been a concerted effort so far. > > Here is a patch to remove remaining uses of "slave" in replication contexts. committed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services