Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#2Terms like ”master / slaves” carry racial overtones so many prefer terms like ”primary / replicas”. Similarly, ”allowlist / blocklist” rather than ”whitelist / blacklist”.
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#3They're halting database traffic for 15-30 minutes. I'm confused how this won't mean they have downtime? The application can queue transactions but how is the application handling reads after those queued trsnactions and what if 2 queued transactions conflict?
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#4Terms like ”master / slaves” carry racial overtones so many prefer terms like ”primary / replicas” . Similarly, ”allowlist / blocklist” rather than ”whitelist / blacklist” .
yeah, nah. I still use master / slave and whitelist / blacklist, I'll continue to do so as long as this Orwellian policing of language continues.
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#5Terms like ”master / slaves” carry racial overtones so many prefer terms like ”primary / replicas” . Similarly, ”allowlist / blocklist” rather than ”whitelist / blacklist” .
I am now using main branch instead of master branch for all my new projects.
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#6They're halting database traffic for 15-30 minutes. I'm confused how this won't mean they have downtime? The application can queue transactions but how is the application handling reads after those queued trsnactions and what if 2 queued transactions conflict?
Also very confused by this. I was waiting for a part that explained how data was being accessed and managed during that window.
I wouldn't really want a different, likely subpar system responsible for queuing and serving requests during that window.
I can only think they are directing it to a different cluster.
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#7Terms like ”master / slaves” carry racial overtones so many prefer terms like ”primary / replicas” . Similarly, ”allowlist / blocklist” rather than ”whitelist / blacklist” .
I actually sort of agree with retiring master and slave because they were just not good descriptive names. Primary and secondary are more accurate descriptions.
But I am still struggling to see an issue with blacklist and whitelist as they actually don’t seem to have anything to do with race, nor have they ever. They have more to do with darkness and light, or death, etc. Like something being a black box just has no relation whatsoever to race.
And if we start to change words that demonstrably have nothing to do with race, then anything is fair game. And that’s just a very unnerving place to be.
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#8Terms like ”master / slaves” carry racial overtones so many prefer terms like ”primary / replicas” . Similarly, ”allowlist / blocklist” rather than ”whitelist / blacklist” .
I actually sort of agree with retiring master and slave because they were just not good descriptive names. Primary and secondary are more accurate descriptions. But I am still struggling to see an issue with blacklist and whitelist as they actually don’t seem to have anything to do with race, nor have they ever. They have more to do with darkness and light, or death, etc. Like something being a black box just has no…
This is where I'm at too. Totally on board for retiring the use of master/slave for primary/replica. But like you said, whitelist/blacklist didn't have anything to do with race. I just don't see why it's relevant at all to the conversation when we are talking about terms or names that may be racially insensitive. It's on you to bring up evidence for why a phrase is insensitive. I've yet to see any.
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#9(2018)
Re: Updating a 50 terabyte PostgreSQL database (2018)
#10Terms like ”master / slaves” carry racial overtones so many prefer terms like ”primary / replicas” . Similarly, ”allowlist / blocklist” rather than ”whitelist / blacklist” .
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. This point has been argued to death a thousand times here already, and no interesting discussion is going to be had by changing the subject to it.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Moreover this article is from 2018, so bringing it up in this context is an anachronism.