Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the actual master databases and
slave databases? Regardless of what they're called, there is still
subservience represented inherently.
In all seriousness, racial tensions can be manufactured when no racism
actually exists. There is no racism inherent in the database
replication nomenclature. Yet, we see that folks are made to believe
they should be concerned about racism instead of fixing a bug. For what
it's worth, whole-cloth change in the name of the master/slave
replication nomenclature will cause bugs, cost money, and make people
believe there is racism when there is not.
Very costly.
On 6/8/20 6:49 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 2020-06-07 21:27, Ruben Safir wrote:
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:43:08PM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On the other, it is difficult to argue that the terms master/slave are
*not* problematic. I'm quite certain they were not *chosen* with any
malicious intent. Nevertheless...
They ARE Masters and Slaves.. and it not in any way shape or form
problematic.
One is the MASTER, and the others are the SLAVES...that do whatever the
Master says.
That is 100% correct technological description
It is technologically correct, yes. It is *also* culturally problematic
in a nation which has deep racial tensions, a large portion of its
population descended from people brought here against their will as
slaves, and a vocal white-supremacist minority who'd like nothing better
than to bring it all back. The technical accuracy of the roles does not
refute this.
In my primary field, the database world, the term "replication slave" is
being widely replaced by "read replica". It serves the same purpose and
is no less accurate.
