pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feed"distributed checkpoint"
20+ messages / 14 participants
[nested] [flat]
* "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-06 22:03 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2007-12-06 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
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)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 01:44 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2007-12-07 01:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; +Cc: pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
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?
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 03:19 Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Joshua D. Drake @ 2007-12-07 03:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
-----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-----
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 03:43 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
parent: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: David Fetter @ 2007-12-07 03:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>; +Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 03:51 Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
parent: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Joshua D. Drake @ 2007-12-07 03:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.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-----
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 04:50 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
parent: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Dunstan @ 2007-12-07 04:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>; +Cc: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>; Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> 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?"
>
>
>
perhaps we should call it Jacob checkpointing, then.
cheers
andrew
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 07:51 Albert Cervera i Areny <albert@nan-tic.com>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Albert Cervera i Areny @ 2007-12-07 07:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
A Dijous 06 Desembre 2007, Alvaro Herrera va escriure:
> 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.
To me, non-native english speaker, time-distributed seems the clearer one.
--
Albert Cervera i Areny
http://www.NaN-tic.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 18:22 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
parent: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
2 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Simon Riggs @ 2007-12-07 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>; +Cc: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>; Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 19:43 -0800, David Fetter 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?"
Agreed
"Smoothed" makes a lot of sense for me. We used to have a checkpoint
spike, now we don't.
Perhaps we should say something like "time extended checkpoints provide
smoother (transaction?) response times"
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-07 20:16 Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>
parent: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Hannu Krosing @ 2007-12-07 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>; +Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>; Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>; Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-12-07 kell 18:22, kirjutas Simon Riggs:
> On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 19:43 -0800, David Fetter 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?"
>
> Agreed
>
> "Smoothed" makes a lot of sense for me. We used to have a checkpoint
> spike, now we don't.
wide checkpoints ?
provide wide and low spikes :)
or even background checpoints ?
> Perhaps we should say something like "time extended checkpoints provide
> smoother (transaction?) response times"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-08 03:25 Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
parent: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Greg Smith @ 2007-12-08 03:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ; +Cc: pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
> "Smoothed" makes a lot of sense for me. We used to have a checkpoint
> spike, now we don't.
To be accurate, there used to be a huge and unavoidable spike, now there's
a control that aims to make it smaller. The problem hasn't completely
gone away yet.
With that in mind, let me start over. Here's what's in the release notes
right now:
"Distributed checkpoints prevent I/O spikes during checkpoints"
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"
It's got spread, it's got smooth, and if I could have worked "silky" in
there too I would have.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-08 03:50 Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
parent: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Jonah H. Harris @ 2007-12-08 03:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>; +Cc: pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Dec 7, 2007 10:25 PM, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote:
> > "Smoothed" makes a lot of sense for me. We used to have a checkpoint
> > spike, now we don't.
>
> To be accurate, there used to be a huge and unavoidable spike, now there's
> a control that aims to make it smaller. The problem hasn't completely
> gone away yet.
Agreed.
> "Distributed checkpoints prevent I/O spikes during checkpoints"
>
> It's good this came up, because that is factually wrong;
Agreed.
> "Checkpoint writes can be spread over a longer time period to smooth the
> I/O spike during each checkpoint"
Sounds good to me.
> It's got spread, it's got smooth, and if I could have worked "silky" in
> there too I would have.
:)
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-10 01:48 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
parent: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2007-12-10 01:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>; +Cc: pgsql-docs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
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)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-12 23:09 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
parent: Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2007-12-12 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; +Cc: pgsql-docs
All,
Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
with "Load Distributed Checkpoint", which is what we've been calling it
for 6 months?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-13 01:36 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
parent: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2007-12-13 01:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: josh@agliodbs.com; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-docs
Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
> the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
> with "Load Distributed Checkpoint", which is what we've been calling it
> for 6 months?
There was nothing *wrong* with the old wording, but the new wording is
clearer? Do you disagree it is clearer? I don't think it makes sense
to keep less-clear wording just to match press release translations.
It is not like we are changing the wording 24 hours before final
release. There will perhaps be other adjustments that might be needed
for the press release. Also, the non-English press release isn't going
to match the English release notes word-for-word anyway (they aren't in
English) so is the new naming that big an issue?
I suggest you update the English press release and ask as many
translators who want to update theirs.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-13 02:10 Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
parent: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Greg Smith @ 2007-12-13 02:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-docs
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Josh Berkus wrote:
> What's *wrong* with "Load Distributed Checkpoint", which is what we've
> been calling it for 6 months?
One issue was that "distributed" has some association with distributed
computing, which isn't actually the case. "Spread" is also more
descriptive of what actually ended up being committed. Those are fairly
subtle wording issues that I wouldn't necessarily expect to survive
translation.
The other problem was that the original description over-sold the feature
a bit. It said "prevent I/O spikes" when it actually just reduces them.
Still possible to have a spike, it probably won't be as big though. Your
call on whether correcting that mischaracterization is worth bothering the
translators over.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-13 06:50 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Magnus Hagander @ 2007-12-13 06:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: josh@agliodbs.com; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-docs
> Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
> the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
> with "Load Distributed Checkpoint", which is what we've been calling it
> for 6 months?
>
Are you saying the PR was 'string freezed' before rc1? And before the actual backend? I wonder how reasonable that really is...
That said we shouldn't change things around for no reason. IKn this case I think there was good motivation.
/Magnus
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-13 11:45 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
parent: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2007-12-13 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-docs
Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
> the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
> with "Load Distributed Checkpoint", which is what we've been calling it
> for 6 months?
Is a translator really not able to change 3 words in a week? Come again.
--
Alvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!
cp me into your .signature file to help me spread!
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-13 16:40 Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Joshua D. Drake @ 2007-12-13 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-docs
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Just FYI, it's going to be difficult to replace the name of the feature in
>> the PR docs at this point; I already have 11 translations. What's *wrong*
>> with "Load Distributed Checkpoint", which is what we've been calling it
>> for 6 months?
>
> Is a translator really not able to change 3 words in a week? Come again.
>
I think it is likely more about being able to reach the translators. The
more common ones such as yourself are obvious but others may not be.
Either way, I think that the change is valid and we need to do it.
Joshua D. Drake
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-13 17:34 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
parent: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Stark @ 2007-12-13 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>; Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-docs
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Is a translator really not able to change 3 words in a week? Come again.
>
> I think it is likely more about being able to reach the translators. The more
> common ones such as yourself are obvious but others may not be.
>
> Either way, I think that the change is valid and we need to do it.
When do we normally freeze strings?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"
@ 2007-12-13 17:49 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
parent: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2007-12-13 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs; +Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Greg, All:
> The other problem was that the original description over-sold the feature
> a bit. It said "prevent I/O spikes" when it actually just reduces them.
> Still possible to have a spike, it probably won't be as big though. Your
> call on whether correcting that mischaracterization is worth bothering the
> translators over.
Sounds like I'd better. Sending out this afternoon.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-12-13 17:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-12-06 22:03 "distributed checkpoint" Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
2007-12-07 01:44 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2007-12-07 03:19 ` Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
2007-12-07 03:43 ` David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
2007-12-07 03:51 ` Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
2007-12-07 04:50 ` Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
2007-12-07 18:22 ` Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
2007-12-07 20:16 ` Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>
2007-12-12 23:09 ` Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2007-12-13 01:36 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2007-12-13 02:10 ` Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
2007-12-13 17:49 ` Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2007-12-13 11:45 ` Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
2007-12-13 16:40 ` Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
2007-12-13 17:34 ` Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
2007-12-08 03:25 ` Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
2007-12-08 03:50 ` Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
2007-12-10 01:48 ` Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
2007-12-07 07:51 ` Albert Cervera i Areny <albert@nan-tic.com>
2007-12-13 06:50 Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint" Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
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