From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always" is too long |
Date: | 2021-07-05 11:25:38 |
Message-ID: | 5c62fda9-bc4f-19af-8b2f-8b8c121e70c6@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/4/21 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As I've been poking around in this area, I find myself growing
> increasingly annoyed at the new GUC name
> "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always". It is too d*mn long.
> It's a serious pain to type in any context where you don't have
> autocomplete to help you. I've kept referring to this type of
> testing as CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS testing, even though that name is
> now obsolete, just because it's so much shorter. I think we need
> to reconsider this name while we still can.
>
> I do agree with the "debug_" prefix given that it's now visible to
> users. However, it doesn't seem that hard to save some space in
> the rest of the name. The word "system" is adding nothing of value,
> and the word "always" seems rather confusing --- if it does
> something "always", why is there more than one level? So a simple
> proposal is to rename it to "debug_invalidate_caches".
>
> However, I think we should also give serious consideration to
> "debug_clobber_cache" or "debug_clobber_cache_always" for continuity
> with past practice (though it still feels like "always" is a good
> word to lose now). "debug_clobber_caches" is another reasonable
> variant.
>
+1 for debug_invalidate_caches - it seems to have the most content and
least noise. Second choice would be debug_clobber_caches.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-07-05 11:32:08 | Re: Excessive cost of OpClassCache flushes in CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS mode |
Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-07-05 11:07:35 | Re: Numeric multiplication overflow errors |