On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, I agree with Jeff that this terminology shouldn't creep into
> function and structure member names.
Okay.
> I don't really like the term "memory pool" either. We're growing a
> bunch of little special-purpose allocators all over the code base
> because of palloc's somewhat dubious performance and memory usage
> characteristics, but if any of those are referred to as memory pools
> it has thus far escaped my notice.
It's a widely accepted term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_pool
But, sure, I'm not attached to it.
--
Peter Geoghegan