Thread

1. Open item: slave to standby in docs

   Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> — 2010-06-04T00:44:15Z

   Ther is an open item:
   Standby instead of "slave" in documentation
   http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1273682033.12754.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
   
   I replacesd almost all "slave" to "standby" or "standby servers"
   not only in HS+SR but also in other places like third-party tools.
   
   There are still 3 places where "slave" is used.
     - Terminology: "... are called standby or slave servers."
     - Words in old release notes for 8.2 and 8.4.
   
   Could you check those replacements are proper?
   
   Regards,
   ---
   Takahiro Itagaki
   NTT Open Source Software Center
   

2. Re: Open item: slave to standby in docs

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-06-09T19:30:18Z

   On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Takahiro Itagaki
   <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
   > Ther is an open item:
   > Standby instead of "slave" in documentation
   > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1273682033.12754.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
   >
   > I replacesd almost all "slave" to "standby" or "standby servers"
   > not only in HS+SR but also in other places like third-party tools.
   >
   > There are still 3 places where "slave" is used.
   >  - Terminology: "... are called standby or slave servers."
   >  - Words in old release notes for 8.2 and 8.4.
   >
   > Could you check those replacements are proper?
   
   Some of these read OK, but others just don't sound right.  In
   particular, "master/standby replication" just sounds odd.  I think the
   word "standby" implies "a server that could take over for the master
   if it died" while "slave" doesn't necessarily have that connotation.
   So for example the changes to protocol.sgml read OK to me, but the
   changes to high-availability.sgml I'm not a big fan of.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise Postgres Company