On 19 July 2018 at 06:27, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:08 AM, David Rowley >> "LazyMaterialize" seems like a good option for a name. It seems better >> than "LazyHash" since you may not want to restrict it to a hash table >> based cache in the future. A binary search tree may be a good option >> for types that cannot be hashed. > > I think that's not too clear, actually. The difference between a > Materialize and a LazyMaterialize is not that this is lazy and that's > not. It's that this can cache multiple result sets for various > parameter values and that can only cache one result set.
Okay. I'm not going to argue with the name of a node type that does not exist yet. I was more suggesting that it should be a modular component that we can plug into whatever plan types suit it. My suggestions for naming was admittedly more of a sales tactic to gain support for the idea, which perhaps failed. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
