| From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint" |
| Date: | 2007-12-13 02:10:51 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.64.0712122054590.16644@westnet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
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(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-12-13 06:50:45 | Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint" |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-12-13 01:36:31 | Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-12-13 06:04:57 | Re: Slow PITR restore |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-12-13 01:36:31 | Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint" |