When I first learned about MySQL replication in 2000, the terminology of Master/Slave seemed really odd and a bit shocking. 20 years later the terminology is s

When I first learned about MySQL replication in 2000, the terminology of Master/Slave seemed really odd and a bit shocking. 20 years later the terminology is still peculiar to me. Even though it's an accurate representation of what slavery is, it is a poignant reminder of a human condition that has sadly not disappeared. The slave database, as a read-only data store, has no agency and can only follow the master database. Yet it's the workhorse for all heavy queries, especially those part of reporting for various execs. It has no value except as a means to reduce load of the master and to save it's rear end in case of corruption... yes there are many parallels. But still, after 2 decades, I'm not sure that this terminology is essential to the world of relational databases. "Leader/Follower" or "Primary/Replica" could convey the same data concepts without resorting to a comparison with slavery. Perhaps a wording update might be in order here.