Re: Is this a typo?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 2:33 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hacker,
>
> While working on the other patch and editing heapam.c, I noticed this in line 2251:
> ```
>     /*
> * If tuple is cachable, mark it for invalidation from the caches in case
> * we abort. Note it is OK to do this after releasing the buffer, because
> * the heaptup data structure is all in local memory, not in the shared
> * buffer.
> */
> ```
>
> Is “cachable” a typo? I confirmed with a dictionary and it gave me “cacheable”. Maybe an acceptable old usage that I
amnot aware of? So, I want to confirm with the community. 
>

FWIW, my AI tells me:
-----
The preferred and more widely accepted spelling is cacheable.
While "cachable" is recognized as an alternative spelling,
particularly in some historical or technical contexts, "cacheable" is
significantly more common in modern usage, including in official
documentation and general writing.
-----

Search reveals:
Postgres has 12x "cacheable"
Postgres has 3x "cachable" (including the one you cited)

IMO it's a typo. The correct spelling is "cacheable", so it should be
corrected where you reported and also in the other two places.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia