Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D042E0257; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:22:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84427-01; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:21:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from outmail136065.authsmtp.com (outmail136065.authsmtp.com [62.13.136.65]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129562E02B9; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:21:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from outmail128181.authsmtp.net (outmail128181.authsmtp.net [62.13.128.181]) by punt2.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id lB7ILmPK063957; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:21:48 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.3] (85-211-24-246.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [85.211.24.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id lB7ILliT070189; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:21:47 GMT Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint" From: Simon Riggs To: David Fetter Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , Tom Lane , Alvaro Herrera , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20071207034328.GB18310@fetter.org> References: <20071206220348.GM8451@alvh.no-ip.org> <5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20071206191944.1d7926d2@commandprompt.com> <20071207034328.GB18310@fetter.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:22:10 +0000 Message-Id: <1197051730.4255.603.camel@ebony.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Quench: 4615f1ef-a4f1-11dc-814e-001185d377ca X-AuthRoute: OCdxZQATClZOTQEd DAteCiNZVAwpPBRK HVkIKg5MJUcNSQVJ NksacBtFaAJbaVxS HGQLW1NEUVV7W2J/ bwIfZQBDYEtPQQdu TkpNRE1QERpoT0Bz AWdiDkAWdwJGeXZ5 K0RiX3YVWEJ7cBB8 FxhJRGlQZHphaTRM TUhZc1ZJcANLfxdA PlN4UyBcLwdSbGoL PyYYHB0LBgAXGwhy aTo4ZRgeQF0XBD82 WgwPEX0kHUAORD00 Lho6YDZh X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633235383639.squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk:787/Kp X-Report-SPAM: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-Virus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system! X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/35 X-Sequence-Number: 4703 On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 19:43 -0800, David Fetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:19:44PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:49 -0500 > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > > > Am I the only one who finds the phrase "distributed checkpointing" > > > > a bit awkward? Would it be better if we used "time-distributed > > > > checkpointing" instead? > > > > > > Yeah, "distributed" has a bunch of connotations that are wrong for > > > this purpose. > > > > > > I spent a bit of time with a thesaurus but didn't come up with > > > anything that seemed le mot juste. Best I could do was "spread > > > checkpoint" or "time-extended checkpoint". Anybody have a better > > > idea? > > > > balanced > > gradual > > extended (I see you mention time-extended but wouldn't time be implicit > > based on the actual docs and thus we only need extended?) > > How about "smoothed?" Agreed "Smoothed" makes a lot of sense for me. We used to have a checkpoint spike, now we don't. Perhaps we should say something like "time extended checkpoints provide smoother (transaction?) response times" -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com