| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby |
| Date: | 2010-05-12 19:01:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4BEAFB1D.3020202@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> If so, master/standby would probably work.
+1 for master/standby.
It's worth remembering that a "standby server" might not be actively
connected to a master server. A server that's reading WAL from an
archive backup, for example, can be put to standby mode. "Standby"
covers that case too, better than "slave".
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-05-12 19:04:18 | Re: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-12 19:00:34 | Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby |