DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=skype.net;
	h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=mail;
	b=ohPw72bB9HBcRkUa8p06fuk7ea99Wsp2YC/jLzpAJe8EPq9rSgS90MVX2ObNaWVXW8ukz9aBvAH1wVsrexd4wX/tx4UEgrnXuRe4g9oGQM0n3yXwn/pEcnIeXcp5Unsv2Lb+N39YJbRq6VjkbZbTHsD1Q0cpNnk3ym/2uihEylo=
Subject: Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"
From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <1197051730.4255.603.camel@ebony.site>
References: <20071206220348.GM8451@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20071206191944.1d7926d2@commandprompt.com>
	<20071207034328.GB18310@fetter.org>
	<1197051730.4255.603.camel@ebony.site>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:16:00 +0200
Message-Id: <1197058560.6307.1.camel@hannu-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=C3=9Chel kenal p=C3=A4eval, R, 2007-12-07 kell 18:22, kirjutas Simon Rig=
gs:
> 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
> > >=20
> > > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:49 -0500
> > > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > > > > Am I the only one who finds the phrase "distributed checkpointi=
ng"
> > > > > a bit awkward?  Would it be better if we used "time-distributed
> > > > > checkpointing" instead?
> > > >=20
> > > > Yeah, "distributed" has a bunch of connotations that are wrong fo=
r
> > > > this purpose.
> > > >=20
> > > > 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?
> > >=20
> > > balanced
> > > gradual
> > > extended (I see you mention time-extended but wouldn't time be impl=
icit
> > > based on the actual docs and thus we only need extended?)
> >=20
> > How about "smoothed?"
>=20
> Agreed
>=20
> "Smoothed" makes a lot of sense for me. We used to have a checkpoint
> spike, now we don't.=20

wide checkpoints ?=20

provide wide and low spikes :)

or even background checpoints ?

> Perhaps we should say something like "time extended checkpoints provide
> smoother (transaction?) response times"=20