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

On Wed, Oct  2, 2019 at 03:04:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't agree with this claim.  While we could argue about if a hot
> standby is considered "active" or not, the vast majority of the world
> considers "active/active" to actually be where you can use the two
> systems interchangably, including being able to write to both.  As such,
> I disagree with this claim- while perhaps you could make an argument
> that it's "technically" correct, it's not how the terms are used in
> practice and saying active/active instead would be well understood by
> the community and industry at large.

With master/standby-replica-slave, it is clear what multi-master is, and
what master/replica is.  If you start using active-active, is it
active/replica?  The full choices are:

    master
    primary
    active

and

    standby
    replica
    slave

Whatever terms we use, it would be nice to use the same term for the
multi-master as for master/replica.  Using active-active and
primary/replica just seems odd.  Multi-primary?  Seems odd since primary
suggests one, though multiple master seems odd too, i.e., more than one
master.  Multi-active seems the most logical, or active-active, but then
active-replica seems odd because it suggests the repica is not active,
i.e. does nothing.  Is no clear logical terminology possible?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +