Re: enable_resultcache confusion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: enable_resultcache confusion
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZQmCNyS_Vv2Jf3TNe7wRTiptWNs7xkgU=AEdqthkQe9A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: enable_resultcache confusion  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: enable_resultcache confusion  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: enable_resultcache confusion  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:29 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:51 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Are we going to be forever explaining that enable_resultcache doesn't
> cache query results?

Yes, I can see that causing ongoing confusion. Naming things is really hard...


I agree that the chosen name is problematic.  To borrow existing technical nomenclature, what we seem to be doing here is adding "Node Memoization" [1].

"enable_nodememoization" would work for me - by avoiding Result and using Node the focus should remain without the bowels of the planner's plan and not move to the output of the query as a whole.  "Node Cache" would probably work just as well if a wholesale change to Memoization doesn't seem appealing, but the semantics of that term seem closer to what is happening here.

The description in the commit message suggests we can use this for a wide variety of nodes so adding any node specific typing to the name seems unwise.

David J.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: enable_resultcache confusion