Remark 36.35.14. Our Definition 36.35.1 of a relatively perfect complex is equivalent to the one given in whenever our definition applies1. Next, suppose that $f : X \to S$ is only assumed to be locally of finite type (not necessarily flat, nor locally of finite presentation). The definition in the paper cited above is that $E \in D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ is relatively perfect if

1. locally on $X$ the object $E$ should be quasi-isomorphic to a finite complex of $S$-flat, finitely presented $\mathcal{O}_ X$-modules.

On the other hand, the natural generalization of our Definition 36.35.1 is

1. $E$ is pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ (More on Morphisms, Definition 37.56.2) and $E$ locally has finite tor dimension as an object of $D(f^{-1}\mathcal{O}_ S)$ (Cohomology, Definition 20.45.1).

The advantage of condition (B) is that it clearly defines a triangulated subcategory of $D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$, whereas we suspect this is not the case for condition (A). The advantage of condition (A) is that it is easier to work with in particular in regards to limits.

[1] To see this, use Lemma 36.35.3 and More on Algebra, Lemma 15.83.4.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).