Use of term Master/Slave

Hi,

On 2017-07-31 21:13:48 +0000, sabrina.iqbal@target.com wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Yea, I think we should be more careful from now on. I think several
people already try, but it's not been a concerted effort so far. I'm
not convinced it's a good idea to change old release notes though.

- Andres

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?

I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use,
but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which
fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term
and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much
sense.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On 08/01/2017 12:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:

On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?

I don't, especially when you take into account cascading replication. If
we are going to change these terms we may want to look at the old slony
(and new logical replication) terms such as Origin and Subscriber.

Thanks,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

Simon Riggs wrote:

On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?

I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't.

I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use,
but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which
fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term
and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much
sense.

Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica".
"Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary"
doesn't.

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

Alvaro, all,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?

I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't.

I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use,
but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which
fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term
and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much
sense.

Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica".
"Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary"
doesn't.

I don't feel like we see much of that terminology being used, whereas
'primary' and 'replica' seem to be more common (particularly since
that's what the big O company uses).

Multi-origin doesn't "feel" any better to me than multi-primary does
(neither is great...), but when it comes to the logical replication side
of things, publishers and subscribers does seem to fit well and so I'm
not entirely sure that we actually need to use the terms "multi-primary"
or "multi-origin"..?

Thanks!

Stephen

On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

Alvaro, all,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

On 31 July 2017 at 22:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?

I think "primary" is fine, but "secondary" isn't.

I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use,
but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which
fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term
and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much
sense.

Elsewhere we've started using the terms "origin" and "replica".
"Multi-origin" sounds sensible enough to me whereas "multi-primary"
doesn't.

I don't feel like we see much of that terminology being used, whereas
'primary' and 'replica' seem to be more common (particularly since
that's what the big O company uses).

+1

Multi-origin doesn't "feel" any better to me than multi-primary does
(neither is great...), but when it comes to the logical replication side
of things, publishers and subscribers does seem to fit well and so I'm
not entirely sure that we actually need to use the terms "multi-primary"
or "multi-origin"..?

For the type of things logical replication does, publisher / subscriber does seem to be the accepted terminology. We just need to be careful in our own documentation based on the LISTEN / NOTIFY functionality that also has similar subscribe / publish terminology in the industry.

Jonathan

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On 1 August 2017 at 09:13, <sabrina.iqbal@target.com> wrote:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Another alternative I've seen in different fields is "manager" and "agent".

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On 01.08.2017 21:41, Simon Riggs wrote:

Do you think primary/secondary is more descriptive?

I started using the terms Primary and Secondary in the original use,
but I think we've moved away from that towards Master/Standby, which
fits better with a world where "muti-master" is a frequently used term
and an eventual goal in core. Multi-primary doesn't seem to make much
sense.

We are not only missing a consensus about the terms noted here. There is
a bunch of terms where it is unclear which one is the 'official' or
'preferred' one. Two additional examples:
WAL / transaction logfile / XLOG file / log segment file / WAL
segment file
Log record / log entry
And there is a second problem: We have a common understanding of terms
like "cluster" or "database". But people coming from other DBMS may have
a different understanding.

A new PG user easily gets lost in the "term-jungle" used in our
documentation, in PG related books, blogs, and training material.

My proposal is to add an additional appendix to our documentation, where
fundamental terms and there meaning for the PG community are defined in
short and clear words (after we have found a consensus about them).

Jürgen Purtz

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On 8/1/17 13:33, Andres Freund wrote:

On 2017-07-31 21:13:48 +0000, sabrina.iqbal@target.com wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Yea, I think we should be more careful from now on. I think several
people already try, but it's not been a concerted effort so far.

Here is a patch to remove remaining uses of "slave" in replication contexts.

Remaining uses are in the Tcl API, which we can't do anything about, and
in a plpgsql test, where it is used for foreign key relationships. (I'm
not sure what the use in the dblink test that I patched was meant for,
so I just removed it.) Old release notes are not touched.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On 8/7/17 17:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On 8/1/17 13:33, Andres Freund wrote:

On 2017-07-31 21:13:48 +0000, sabrina.iqbal@target.com wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html
Description:

Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there
are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner.

Yea, I think we should be more careful from now on. I think several
people already try, but it's not been a concerted effort so far.

Here is a patch to remove remaining uses of "slave" in replication contexts.

committed

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs