As of 950cf6016c, the mediawiki/core repo was updated to use DB_REPLICA instead of DB_SLAVE, with the old constant left as an alias. This is part of a string of commits that cleaned up the mixed use of "replica" and "slave" by sticking to the former. Extensions have not been mass converted. Please use the new constant in any new code.
The word "replica" is a bit more indicative of a broader range of DB setups*, is used by a range of large companies**, and is more neutral in connotations.
Drupal and Django made similar updates (even replacing the word "master"): * https://www.drupal.org/node/2275877 * https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692/files & https://github.com/django/django/commit/beec05686ccc3bee8461f9a5a02c607a0235...
I don't plan on doing anything to DB_MASTER, since it seems fine by itself, like "master copy", "master tape" or "master key". This is analogous to a master RDBMs database. Even multi-master RDBMs systems tend to have a stronger consistency than classic RDBMs slave servers, and present themselves as one logical "master" or "authoritative" copy. Even in it's personified form, a "master" database can readily be thought of as analogous to "controller", "governer", "ruler", lead "officer", or such.**
* clusters using two-phase commit, galera using certification-based replication, multi-master circular replication, ect... ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Appropriateness_of_u... *** http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master?utm_campaign=sd&utm_med...
Sorry for late question. I guess we should deprecate wfWaitForSlaves() and probably some other methods that still use this logic
Best
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM Aaron Schulz aschulz4587@gmail.com wrote:
As of 950cf6016c, the mediawiki/core repo was updated to use DB_REPLICA instead of DB_SLAVE, with the old constant left as an alias. This is part of a string of commits that cleaned up the mixed use of "replica" and "slave" by sticking to the former. Extensions have not been mass converted. Please use the new constant in any new code.
The word "replica" is a bit more indicative of a broader range of DB setups*, is used by a range of large companies**, and is more neutral in connotations.
Drupal and Django made similar updates (even replacing the word "master"):
https://github.com/django/django/commit/beec05686ccc3bee8461f9a5a02c607a0235...
I don't plan on doing anything to DB_MASTER, since it seems fine by itself, like "master copy", "master tape" or "master key". This is analogous to a master RDBMs database. Even multi-master RDBMs systems tend to have a stronger consistency than classic RDBMs slave servers, and present themselves as one logical "master" or "authoritative" copy. Even in it's personified form, a "master" database can readily be thought of as analogous to "controller", "governer", "ruler", lead "officer", or such.**
- clusters using two-phase commit, galera using certification-based
replication, multi-master circular replication, ect... **
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Appropriateness_of_u...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master?utm_campaign=sd&utm_med...
-- -Aaron _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I don't plan on doing anything to DB_MASTER, since it seems fine by
itself,
like "master copy", "master tape" or "master key"
MySQL has announced they chose to use "source": https://mysqlhighavailability.com/mysql-terminology-updates/ We can consider updating too, I think it is a more accurate representation of what those servers are (sending original data to, rather than controlling the replicas).
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM Amir Ladsgroup ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for late question. I guess we should deprecate wfWaitForSlaves() and probably some other methods that still use this logic
Best
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM Aaron Schulz aschulz4587@gmail.com wrote:
As of 950cf6016c, the mediawiki/core repo was updated to use DB_REPLICA instead of DB_SLAVE, with the old constant left as an alias. This is part of a string of commits that cleaned up the mixed use of "replica" and "slave" by sticking to the former. Extensions have not been mass converted. Please use the new constant in any new code.
The word "replica" is a bit more indicative of a broader range of DB setups*, is used by a range of large companies**, and is more neutral in connotations.
Drupal and Django made similar updates (even replacing the word
"master"):
https://github.com/django/django/commit/beec05686ccc3bee8461f9a5a02c607a0235...
I don't plan on doing anything to DB_MASTER, since it seems fine by
itself,
like "master copy", "master tape" or "master key". This is analogous to a master RDBMs database. Even multi-master RDBMs systems tend to have a stronger consistency than classic RDBMs slave servers, and present themselves as one logical "master" or "authoritative" copy. Even in it's personified form, a "master" database can readily be thought of as analogous to "controller", "governer", "ruler", lead "officer", or
such.**
- clusters using two-phase commit, galera using certification-based
replication, multi-master circular replication, ect... **
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Appropriateness_of_u...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master?utm_campaign=sd&utm_med...
-- -Aaron _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I'd be happy to rename it to "source". It would be also great if we clean up puppet repo from bad terms
If people want to follow the discussion, I'd recommend checking this ticket: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254646
Best
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 11:30 Jaime Crespo jcrespo@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't plan on doing anything to DB_MASTER, since it seems fine by
itself,
like "master copy", "master tape" or "master key"
MySQL has announced they chose to use "source": https://mysqlhighavailability.com/mysql-terminology-updates/ We can consider updating too, I think it is a more accurate representation of what those servers are (sending original data to, rather than controlling the replicas).
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM Amir Ladsgroup ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for late question. I guess we should deprecate wfWaitForSlaves()
and
probably some other methods that still use this logic
Best
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM Aaron Schulz aschulz4587@gmail.com wrote:
As of 950cf6016c, the mediawiki/core repo was updated to use DB_REPLICA instead of DB_SLAVE, with the old constant left as an alias. This is
part
of a string of commits that cleaned up the mixed use of "replica" and "slave" by sticking to the former. Extensions have not been mass converted. Please use the new constant in any new code.
The word "replica" is a bit more indicative of a broader range of DB setups*, is used by a range of large companies**, and is more neutral
in
connotations.
Drupal and Django made similar updates (even replacing the word
"master"):
https://github.com/django/django/commit/beec05686ccc3bee8461f9a5a02c607a0235...
I don't plan on doing anything to DB_MASTER, since it seems fine by
itself,
like "master copy", "master tape" or "master key". This is analogous
to a
master RDBMs database. Even multi-master RDBMs systems tend to have a stronger consistency than classic RDBMs slave servers, and present themselves as one logical "master" or "authoritative" copy. Even in
it's
personified form, a "master" database can readily be thought of as analogous to "controller", "governer", "ruler", lead "officer", or
such.**
- clusters using two-phase commit, galera using certification-based
replication, multi-master circular replication, ect... **
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Appropriateness_of_u...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master?utm_campaign=sd&utm_med...
-- -Aaron _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jaime Crespo http://wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org