From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:19:44 -0800
Message-ID: <20071206191944.1d7926d2@commandprompt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20071206220348.GM8451@alvh.no-ip.org>
<5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:49 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> 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?)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase
> your free space map settings
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHWLvWATb/zqfZUUQRAkYAAJoCMHhtiWA6qxDG7U7UlfWsGBf+3QCeLwab
lzoTVeD8YvEme5M2TFi8NF8=
=c7bI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
In-Reply-To: <20071206191944.1d7926d2@commandprompt.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox