[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14010114#comment-14010114
]
Alexander Shorin commented on COUCHDB-2248:
-------------------------------------------
[~rnewson]
> To Alex's point about "backup", I believe that is the intended functionality
> of a slave database in a master/slave setup, it serves as a backup of the
> master. One "fails over" to the backup if the master fails.
The "slave" may not being backup of master by simple reasons: filtered
replication, availability of custom data and validate functions on the "slave"
side which leads that it can contains only some part of master's data.
"Primary/secondary" falls into confusion with fail-over terminology. For
instance, when you configure DNS you can setup primary and secondary servers
(note, these terms are native) which means that any request will first being
sent to primary server and if it'll fail - repeated to secondary one and so on.
> "replica" does not mean "slave", and, as previously mentioned, and just now
> mentioned again, "master replica" and "slave replica" are valid (if
> redundant) ways to express these terms.
You're right and LDAP replication terminology explicitly defines first
"Replica" and then "Master Replica" and "Slave Replica". "Replica" by itself
isn't good "Slave" replacement, I agree with that. However, we could completely
avoid this replacement. As for replication to define "master" and "slave" we
have own well known and perfect terms: "source" and "target" which explicitly
defines the direction. So both "Source" and "Target" are "Replica" in common
term, "Master Replica" in specific one, "Replication" is "Multi-Master". No
need to operate with "master/slave", "primary/secondary", "Slave" or just
"Replica". How do you feel with that?
> Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-2248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: public(Regular issues)
> Components: Documentation
> Reporter: Noah Slater
> Priority: Trivial
>
> Inspired by the comments on this PR:
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
> Summary is: `master` and `slave` are racially charged terms, and it would be
> good to avoid them. Django have gone for `primary` and `replica`. But we also
> have to deal with what we now call multi-master setups. I propose "peer to
> peer" as a replacement, or just "peer" if you're describing one node.
> As far as I can tell, the primary work here is the docs. The wiki and any
> supporting material can be updated after.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
