Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5272E2EC9; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:03:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05177-05-2; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:03:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598812E332F; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:03:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (200-126-109-160.bk7-dsl.surnet.cl [200.126.109.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB6M3k08025211 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:03:49 -0800 Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4275C47C69; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:03:48 -0300 (CLST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:03:48 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: "distributed checkpoint" Message-ID: <20071206220348.GM8451@alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:03:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/25 X-Sequence-Number: 4693 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? The phrase is used in the release notes, but it's not used anywhere in the main docs. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/DXLWNGRJD34J "Hay quien adquiere la mala costumbre de ser infeliz" (M. A. Evans)