From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "distributed checkpoint"
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:49 -0500
Message-ID: <5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071206220348.GM8451@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <20071206220348.GM8451@alvh.no-ip.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
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "distributed checkpoint"
In-Reply-To: <5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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