Re: replication wordsmithing / clarifications

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:11 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:40:45PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > maybe "to one or more replicas." or maybe "to one or more replica
> > targets." I'd avoid the word cluster because you could set it up to
> > send to multiple databases in the same postgres cluster.
>
> Magnus has given a better suggestion: to just use "servers".
>

I think I like targets over servers, since it could be a different
server or the same server or even the same database, but happy either
way.

> > If you think about it, this sentence is essentially saying "If you
> > don't like the downsides of this replication method, you can use an
> > entirely different replication method." Well sure, you could, but once
> > you are using a different method, you are no longer using the method
> > we are trying to describe. In addition, there are several other
> > systems you could use beyond the suggested one, so suggestion this
> > specific one felt mis-leading or out of place. And it is not something
> > we talk about in any of the other sections (after all, every
> > replication system has trade-offs that might not be acceptable, that's
> > why we have so many of them).
>
> OK, I see your point.  Seeing like that, it makes sense.

LMK if you'd like an updated patch. Also I wrote this against master,
but could verify it against 13 if folks wanted to backpatch (it might
apply cleanly though)


Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net