Re: "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always" is too long

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always" is too long
Date: 2021-07-05 06:18:17
Message-ID: CALj2ACWKz91tdfjVyfdxEayApH0k0D2wsVqUg8Rz4i5MB44Vqw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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.
>
> Thoughts?

+1. IMO, debug_clobber_caches is better because it is simple. And
also, since the invalidation happens on multiple system caches,
debug_clobber_caches is preferable than debug_clobber_cache.

Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Emre Hasegeli 2021-07-05 06:27:50 Re: Yet another fast GiST build
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-07-05 05:52:51 Re: Can a child process detect postmaster death when in pg_usleep?