Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> > The server's messages and the documentation uses all of these terms in
>> > mixed ways.  Maybe we could decide on some preferred terminology and
>> > adjust the existing texts.  Ideas?
>>
>> Primary/secondary seem like a poor choice because they're such generic
>> terms.  Master/slave is the common terminology for this, I think,
>> though some might object on grounds of political incorrectness.
>> If so, master/standby would probably work.
>
> I have always been unclear if a slave indicates it accepts read-only
> queries, i.e. are slave and standby interchangable?

We had a long discussion of this topic last summer:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00870.php

I still think Peter's right, but there were contrary opinions.  Still,
the discussion is an interesting read.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company