Re: Again, sorry, caching.

> Yes...I was thinking that a generic library interface with a nice design
> pattern might meet this need rather well. Done properly, I think we can
> make it where all that, more or less, would be needed is application
> hooks which accept the result set to be cached and a mechanism to signal
> invalidation of the current cache....obviously that's not an exhaustive
> list... :)

A library implies that the application is running long enough to actually
hear the notofication. Web apps start up, read from the database, and before
any cache is needed they're done and the next one starts up, reading again
from the database. Only currently open connections receive the notification.

I think that you do need an entire layer... but that's not a bad thing
necessarily. Have a daemon that stays connected for a long time and when a
notification arrives, rewrite the cache (or mark it dirty). Other
applications can read data from static files or shared memory, or even
another communication socket with your daemon.

There may be some way around running a daemon, so if you have a better
solution please let me know.

I think I am in favor of client caching in general, but "mlw" (sorry, I can't
find your real name in the emails at hand) makes some good points. The most
important one is that we don't want to change application architectures on
everyone. It's easy if you just have to add "iscachable" to a query, it's
hard if you have to start writing against a different set of routines (to
grab from your client cache rather than a database).

However, I am perfectly happy writing a client-side cache or using temp
tables to store a result set. I also don't care that much if someone chooses
PostgreSQL for their website (unless I'm responsible for it's success in some
way :) ). That's me personally, if you want to attract more users from mysql,
"iscachable" is very likely an attractive feature.

Regards,
Jeff