On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 16:39 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 15:30 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 10:10 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> >> Currently show pool_nodes SQL command shows: > >> >> > >> >> id | hostname | port | status | lb_weight > >> >> > >> >> I would like to add info whether the node is primary, master or > >> >> standby because there's no way to know from exisiting pgpool-II UI. > >> >> The new column name would be "class" (plese say no, if you have better > >> >> idea about naming). The value will as follows: > >> >> > >> >> Raw mode: > >> >> "master" or "" > >> >> > >> >> Native replication mode: > >> >> "master" or "slave" > >> >> > >> >> Streaming replication mode: > >> >> "primary" or "standby" > >> >> > >> >> Master slave mode with slony: > >> >> "master" or "slave" > >> >> > >> >> Comments or opinions? > >> > > >> > I guess it would be better to have the same vocabulary. So I would vote > >> > "master"/"slave" for each replication mode, and "master" for raw mode. > >> > >> Hum. I'd prefer to use "primary" and "standby" to keep consistency > >> with PostgreSQL's terminology. We might use even another word for 9.1, > >> for example "synchronous standby". So just only using "master/slave" > >> would be more confusing and less informative to user, I think. > > > > The same will happen to Slony users: they use "master" and "slave", or > > "provider"/"subscriber", but never "primary"/"standby". PostgreSQL users > > use both (but never "provider"/"subscriber"). > > > > So, "master"/"slave" is more generic terms than "primary"/"standby". > > Ok, so you want to use more generic term. I would like to choose > replication technology specific term. The benefit of using generic > term is easier to understand for novice users. On the other hand, the > technology specific term will give more precise and clearner info. > Which is better? The user of the command is apparently admin, not > oridinaly user. So they are not novice and I think technology specific > term will be more appropreative for that kind of users. > > What do you think?
Hmmm, I understand now why you want different terms. Could work, but it should be explicited in the documentation. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list Pgpool-hackers@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
