[Pgpool-hackers] Enhancing show pool_nodes

[Guillaume Lelarge]

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