On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:17:22AM -0600, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> Although I am new to this group, I feel that the reference to CLUSTERNAME
> in the slony docs is ambiguous and confusing.

The word cluster is horribly overused, yes.  That said. . .

> CLUSTERDBNAME should be changed to REPSCHEMANAME
> INIT CLUSTER should be changed to INIT REPSCHEMA.
> 
> It should also be clarified that REPSCHEMA is created by
> INIT REPSCHEMA and should not exist before that.

. . . this is just as confusing.  Indeed, "schema" is almost as bad
in the database world (dump the database schema of your SQL schema if
you don't believe me ;-).  Moreover, the schema bit is an
implementation detail: you can in fact be replicating more than one
schema when you replicate your database.  And "database" won't do,
because we're replicating _across_ databases (well, database
instances).  I agree that cluster is an infelicitious choice, but I
don't think this one's better (and the first bad choice has the merit
of backward compatibility).  

That said, and unambiguous term would probably garner my support.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
Information security isn't a technological problem.  It's an economics
problem.
		--Bruce Schneier