Re: I'm surprised to see the word master here

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:57 PM Erikjan Rijkers <[email protected]> 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.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more