Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 22:48:39 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
Message-ID: <20071210014839.GA7240@alvh.no-ip.org>
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>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0712072138270.10014@westnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0712072138270.10014@westnet.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

Greg Smith wrote:

> It's good this came up, because that is factually wrong; while the average 
> case is much better some OS-dependant aspects of the spike (what happens at 
> fsync) are certainly still there.  I think it's easier to rewrite this 
> whole thing so it's technically accurate rather than a simple fix of the 
> wording, something like this:
>
> "Checkpoint writes can be spread over a longer time period to smooth the 
> I/O spike during each checkpoint"

Thanks, I changed it to this.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                        http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre
"No necesitamos banderas
 No reconocemos fronteras"                  (Jorge González)