On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Also, Tsrcache is strangely named: it's not exactly a cache, it's >> more of a registry. > > When I used the word "cache" here, I was thinking more of this > English language definition: > > a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving > provisions or implements > b : a secure place of storage > > The intent being to emphasize that there is not one public > "registry" of such objects, but context-specific collections where > references are tucked away when they become available for later use > in the only the appropriate context. Eventually, when these are > used for some of the less "eager" timings of materialized view > maintenance, they may be set aside for relatively extended periods > (i.e., minutes or maybe even hours) before being used. Neither > "registry" nor "cache" seems quite right; maybe someone can think > of a word with more accurate semantics.
I complained about the use of "cache" in this name before, and I still think that it is off-base. I'm not saying there isn't some definition of the word that could cover what you're doing here, but it's not the definition that is going to pop to mind for people reading the code. I think "registry" would be OK; the fact that there is a registry does not mean it is a global registry; it can be a registry of ephemeral relations specific to that query. I'm sure there are other good choices, too, but, please, not cache! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
