From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachability |
Date: | 2002-04-02 21:57:04 |
Message-ID: | 3CAA2930.4070502@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, because of MVCC semantics, case 2 covers more ground than you might
> think. We are interested in functions whose values cannot change during
> a single "scan", ie, while the intra-transaction command counter does
> not increment. So functions that do SELECTs are actually guaranteed to
> be case 2, even if stuff outside the function is changing the table
> being looked at.
>
> My problem is picking names for the three categories of functions.
> Currently we use "with (isCachable)" to identify category 1, but it
> seems like this name might actually be more sensible for category 2.
> I'm having a hard time picking simple names that convey these meanings
> accurately, or even with a reasonable amount of suggestiveness.
>
> Comments, ideas?
>
How about:
case 1: Cachable
case 2: ScanCachable or Optimizable
case 3: NonCachable
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Walker | 2002-04-02 22:09:14 | Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachability attributes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-02 21:40:57 | Suggestions please: names for function cachability attributes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Walker | 2002-04-02 22:09:14 | Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachability attributes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-02 21:40:57 | Suggestions please: names for function cachability attributes |