Re: Suggestions please: names for function

From: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Suggestions please: names for function
Date: 2002-04-03 18:43:21
Message-ID: 3CAB4D49.DF301AFE@mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It occurs to me that we also need a better term for the overall concept.
> "cacheability" has misled at least two people (that I can recall) into
> thinking that we maintain some kind of function result cache --- which
> is not true, and if it were true we'd need the term "cacheable" for
> control parameters for the cache, which this categorization is not.
>
> I am thinking that "mutability" might be a good starting point instead
> of "cacheability". This leads immediately to what seems like a fairly
> reasonable set of names:
>
> pg_proc column: promutable or proismutable
>
> case 1: "immutable"
> case 2: "mutable", or perhaps "stable"
> case 3: "volatile"

I like 1 and 3 :-)

I think 2 should be something like "stable." Mutable and volitile have very
similar meanings.

I'm not sure, the word stable is right, though. Cacheable has the best meaning,
but implies something that isn't. How about "persistent" or "fixed?"

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message impala 2002-04-03 18:58:32 Increment primary key
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-03 18:41:14 Re: Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-03 19:04:20 Re: Question: update and transaction isolation
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-03 18:41:14 Re: Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved)