Re: [HACKERS] "distributed checkpoint"

[Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>]

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 <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > 
> > > 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?
> > 
> > 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