Re: [HACKERS] "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 Herrera http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre
"No necesitamos banderas
No reconocemos fronteras" (Jorge González)