| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "distributed checkpoint" |
| Date: | 2007-12-07 01:44:49 |
| Message-ID: | 5958.1196991889@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-12-07 03:19:44 | Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint" |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-06 22:03:48 | "distributed checkpoint" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-07 02:19:39 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-07 01:20:18 | Re: Problem with ControlFileData structure being ABI dependent |