> On Apr 23, 2026, at 13:32, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought of it, but didn't do it as it meant having to keep a bit
> more state to track if we've filled the cache yet, plus the extra
> costs incurred to check if we've done it yet that would have to be
> paid for every NULL lookup. We currently have to check if the hash
> table has been set up already, so I felt more comfortable installing
> the new code in with that.
That makes sense to me. I agree that tying it to the existing hash-table
setup is the simpler place to do it, and avoids adding extra state plus
another check on each NULL lookup.
So I am fine with keeping it as-is.
--
Best regards,
Chengpeng Yan
