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
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
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
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
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
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*
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
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?
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
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:
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
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.
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
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
-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
-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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
