| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: evtcache: EventTriggerCache vs Event Trigger Cache |
| Date: | 2023-05-08 23:07:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20230508230733.GB2423557@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 10:39:42AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 4 May 2023, at 14:18, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> On 4 May 2023, at 14:09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Hmm, I'm kinda -1 on them having the same name visible in the
>>> contexts dump --- that seems very confusing. How about naming
>>> the hash "EventTriggerCacheHash" or so?
>>
>> I think the level is the indicator here, but I have no strong opinions,
>> EventTriggerCacheHash is fine by me.
>
> The attached trivial diff does that, parking this in the next CF.
+1 for EventTriggerCacheHash
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-05-08 23:40:54 | Re: Cleaning up array_in() |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-05-08 23:04:10 | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |