taler-docs

commit 275de898eeff924b0658adbbc3cd51cadcd749d6
parent 315ef919bdc1332ceca519f13fb4e32c9a67d67d
Author: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org>
Date:   Tue,  5 Jan 2021 16:36:05 -0500

fix typo: s/ingres/ingress/

Diffstat:
M
design-documents/011-auditor-db-sync.rst
 | 
2
+-

1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/design-documents/011-auditor-db-sync.rst b/design-documents/011-auditor-db-sync.rst
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ Drawbacks
   is the answer, to be investigated what performs better.
 * A malicious exchange could theoretically send expensive transactions
   to the auditor via the replication mechanism (possibly ones that
-  it did not even execute locally itself) to DoS the "ingres"
+  it did not even execute locally itself) to DoS the "ingress"
   database. This would be noticed primarily by load
   monitoring or even the auditor lagging unusually far behind the
   exchange's transaction history. We believe this is acceptable,