On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 21:51 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:49:54AM +1300, Mike Taves wrote: > On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 10:57, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > With master/standby-replica-slave, it is clear what multi-master is, and > > what master/replica is. If you start using active-active, is it > > active/replica? The full choices are: ... > > There are more choices. Coming from a different corner of computing, > we have changed these computing resource names to other > anthropomorphic titles found around office environments: "manager" and > either "worker" or "agent". With these names, some derived terms are > "multi-manager" and "standby-replica-worker".
I think the problem is that "worker" doesn't have the idea that it is a copy of the primary, which replica and standby kind of do. On the other hand, worker and slave seem almost identical, and you are right they don't have the concept of being a copy either. :-( I guess I was hoping to move to a term that had _copy_ built into the term.
Also some might find the use of the word "worker" to be Capitalist anti-labor propaganda and thus offensive. This road leads to the circular firing squad. Let is try to be reasonably neutral politically.