From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: 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 19:43:29 -0800
Message-ID: <20071207034328.GB18310@fetter.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071206191944.1d7926d2@commandprompt.com>
References: <20071206220348.GM8451@alvh.no-ip.org>
<5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20071206191944.1d7926d2@commandprompt.com>
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?"
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
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: david@fetter.org, 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: <20071207034328.GB18310@fetter.org>
* 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