Re: language cleanups in code and docs
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-06-17T22:24:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:59:26PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > 0002: code: s/master/primary/ > > 0003: code: s/master/leader/ > > 0006: docs: s/master/root/ > > 0007: docs: s/master/supervisor/ > > I'd just like to make the pointer here that there's value in trying to > use different terminology for different things. I picked "leader" and > "worker" for parallel query and tried to use them consistently because > "master" and "slave" were being used widely to refer to physical > replication, and I thought it would be clearer to use something > different, so I did. It's confusing if we use the same word for the > server from which others replicate, the table from which others > inherit, the process which initiates parallelism, and the first > process that is launched across the whole cluster, regardless of > *which* word we use for those things. So, I think there is every > possibility that with careful thought, we can actually make things > clearer, in addition to avoiding the use of terms that are no longer > welcome. I think the question is whether we can improve our terms as part of this rewording, or if we make them worse. When we got rid of slave and made it standby, I think we made things worse since many of the replicas were not functioning for the purpose of standby. Standby is a role, not a status, while replica is a status. The other issue is how the terms interlink with other terms. When we used master/slave, multi-master matched the wording, but replication didn't match. If we go with replica, replication works, and primary/replica kind of fits, e.g., master/replica does not. Multi-master then no longer fits, multi-primary sounds odd, and active-active doesn't match, though active-active is not used as much as primary/replica, so maybe that is OK. Ideally we would have all terms matching, but maybe that is impossible. My point is that these terms are symbolic (similes) --- the new terms should link to their roles and to other terms in a logical way. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
Commits
-
Replace remaining uses of "whitelist".
- 034510c820cd 14.0 landed
-
pgindent: whitelist/blacklist -> additional/excluded.
- fe05b6b62006 14.0 landed
-
Rename "enum blacklist" to "uncommitted enums".
- c0d4f6d89749 14.0 landed
-
code: replace most remaining uses of 'master'.
- a9a4a7ad565b 14.0 landed
-
docs: replace 'master process' with 'supervisor process' where appropriate.
- 7c89f8a5b810 14.0 landed
-
docs: replace 'master' with 'root' where appropriate.
- 09dfd430118f 14.0 landed
-
docs: replace 'master' with 'primary' where appropriate.
- 9e101cf60612 14.0 landed
-
code: replace 'master' with 'leader' where appropriate.
- e07633646a22 14.0 landed
-
code: replace 'master' with 'primary' where appropriate.
- 5e7bbb528638 14.0 landed
-
tap tests: replace 'master' with 'primary'.
- 229f8c219f8f 14.0 landed