Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think what we should do is either (1) implement a poor man's caching
> that doesn't try to cope with any of these issues, and document that
> you get what you pay for or (2) reject this idea in its entirety.
> Trying to reimplement all of our normal function call semantics in a
> caching layer does not seem very sane.
What about (3) implementing the caching layer in the core code so that
any caller benefit from it? I guess the size of the project is not the
same though.
Regards,
--
dim
