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

Greetings,

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2019-09-25 00:28, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > Ya, I was under that impression as well. 
> >
> > Dave Cramer
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 18:18, Renee <renee.phillips@gmail.com
> > <mailto:renee.phillips@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     I was under the impression that both terms were being deprecated. Is
> >     that only the case when they appear in tandem?
>
> Again, you might be confusing this.  I don't recall any such initiative
> nor do I see any commits to that effect.

Alright then, given we have multiple people asking about this- should we
be considering adopting different language, even if we hadn't previously
had such an initiative?

I know that I tend towards primary/replica when discussing physical
replication, and we do that quite a bit in the documentation (consider
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/warm-standby.html where we seem to be
pretty confused about if we want to talk about the system as a 'primary'
or as a 'master'- but *clearly* primary is winning the war there).

Even if we aren't avoiding the term for its negative connotations
explicitly, having some consistency here strikes me as worthwhile.

Thanks,

Stephen