Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 Herrerahttp://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre No necesitamos banderas No reconocemos fronteras (Jorge González) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
On Dec 7, 2007 10:25 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:49 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:43:29 -0800 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] distributed checkpoint
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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
