From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:51:45 -0800
Message-ID: <20071206195145.791b8d8a@commandprompt.com> (raw)
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>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:43:29 -0800
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> 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 <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?)
>
> How about "smoothed?"
Pre-emptive apologies:
silky
satin
butter
Man... that would rock silky_checkpoint = true ;)
:P
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Cheers,
> David.
- --
=== 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)
iD8DBQFHWMNSATb/zqfZUUQRAt/yAKCEI2b7LTm7jM32Qx2HAM5NCZCh4QCfWAg5
qswiDmCrSWKH2RHCqPWw5j4=
=xmGU
-----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, david@fetter.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"
In-Reply-To: <20071206195145.791b8d8a@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