Re: "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always" is too long

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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