Hi, On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote: > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > We've removed the use of "slave" from most of the repo (one use > > remained, included here), but we didn't do the same for master. In the > > attached series I replaced most of the uses. > > > > 0001: tap tests: s/master/primary/ > > Pretty clear cut imo. > > Nothing to argue with here as far as I can see. It's a lot of churn, though, > so the sooner it goes in the better so people can update for the next CF.
Yea, unless somebody protests I'm planning to push this part soon. > > 0004: code: s/master/$other/ > > This is most of the remaining uses of master in code. A number of > > references to 'master' in the context of toast, a few uses of 'master > > copy'. I guess some of these are a bit less clear cut. > > Not sure I love authoritative, e.g. > > + * fullPageWrites is the authoritative value used by all backends to > > and > > + * grabbed a WAL insertion lock to read the authoritative value in > > Possibly "shared"? I don't think shared is necessarily correct for all of these. E.g. in the GetRedoRecPtr() there's two shared values at play, but only one is "authoritative". > + * Create the Tcl interpreter subsidiary to pltcl_hold_interp. > > Maybe use "worker" here? Not much we can do about the Tcl function name, > though. It's pretty localized, though, so may not matter much. I don't think it matters much what we use here > > 0008: docs: WIP multi-master rephrasing. > > I like neither the new nor the old language much. I'd welcome input. > > Why not multi-primary? My understanding of primary is that there really can't be two things that are primary in relation to each other. active/active is probably the most common term in use besides multi-master. > One last thing -- are we considering back-patching any/all of this? I don't think there's a good reason to do so. Thanks for the look! Greetings, Andres Freund
