Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
  • S system-design-primer
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 173
    • Issues 173
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 190
    • Merge requests 190
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Package Registry
    • Infrastructure Registry
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Donne Martin
  • system-design-primer
  • Merge requests
  • !217

Fix #397: Change master/slave to primary/replica

  • Review changes

  • Download
  • Email patches
  • Plain diff
Closed Administrator requested to merge github/fork/chriscoffee/leader-follower into master Sep 22, 2018
  • Overview 9
  • Commits 1
  • Pipelines 0
  • Changes 11

Created by: chriscoffee

This is somewhat of a tricky pull request that with all honesty I don't expect to get merged.

There are still some that feel that there are benifits of using the 'well-known' terminology of master and slave far rather than those without negative historic connotations such as leader/follower or primary/replica citing readability etc..

However, I hope you will atleast consider seriously altering the language in this repository, especially if it's helpful as a tool for interviews to work on large-scale systems given many companies have adopted either leader/follower or primary/replica, as alternate terms of reference.

Some examples its alteration, and conversation around it can be found below. I have tried to find some who haven't made the move in order to provide a balanced argument, feel free to add more in the comments:

  • https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_ReadRepl.html

  • https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/system-center/system-center-2012-R2/hh846234(v=technet.10)

  • https://github.com/django/django/pull/2694

  • https://docs.pivotal.io/p-mysql/2-2/about-leader-follower.html

  • https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSSH5A_8.0.0/com.ibm.rational.clearquest.ms_admin.doc/topics/c_cr_db_replica_ovw.htm

  • https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248

  • https://support.cloud.engineyard.com/hc/en-us/articles/205408108-Set-Up-Database-Replication

  • https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/11/python_purges_master_and_slave_in_political_pogrom/

  • https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185

  • https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2275877

I think even if there's just a footnote referencing that some feel that this is no longer an acceptable reference, that's also an option.

Assignee
Assign to
Reviewers
Request review from
Time tracking
Source branch: github/fork/chriscoffee/leader-follower