David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 08:56:38AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> >>> OK, so it is "warm slave".
Why isn't it just a "read only slave". Do some systems have read-only slave databases that can't serve as a warm standby system as well as this one could? >> That is technically accurate, given the preceding definitions, but >> it has disturbing connotations. Enough so, in my view, to merit >> getting a little more creative in the naming. How about "warm >> replica"? Other ideas? > > Warm Read > Streamed Copy Master/Slave Replication and Warm Standby systems are common enough terms that I can google them or look them up in many computer science books. While coming up with creative politically correct euphemisms might be fun, I hope we stick near terms that other DBAs could already be familiar with. ISTM the best way to refer to it formally would be a "Read Only Slave / Warm Standby" system, even if informally we might have informal discussions of "just how hot our slaves are" when hot-standby features get added down the road. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers