sync.Map in Go 1.9 is a little low on examples/doc in the wild, so I thought I should ask here.
The new type is promoted as a replacement for RWMutex in mostly read use cases with stable keys. I assume that a typical in memory cache would fit that description. With RWMutex, if the cost of creating the cache item is high, I would maybe do something ala: mu.RLock() // Check cache mu.RUnclock() // Return if found // If Not found: mu.Lock() defer mu.Unlock() // Double check cache, return if found // Create item and put in cache I don't see how the above can be written with a sync.Map without adding a mutex. bep -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
