Обсуждение: Is this a typo?

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 am
notaware of? So, I want to confirm with the community. 

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

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

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 4:45 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

+1

I think the incorrect spelling fits the usual pattern (movable,
valuable, believable, ... with moveable accepted but dying), and it's
definitely "caching" without the -e-, so it's probably a tempting
mistake to make, but apparently we're making new words out of bits of
French with the C preprocessor ## operator and ignoring all that.  I
bet it's "cachable" en français though.  My Oxford Concise lists only
the -e- form, so you have my vote.  The online Merriam-Webster (I
think that's the main reference for US spelling?) doesn't list either
and suggests I might be looking for cashable.

Now can anyone explain why database people write "sargable[1]", but
universally pronounce it as "sargeable"?  That shows the reason to
keep an e around before an a, in our chaotic spelling system, if you
can call it a system :-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargable

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> I think the incorrect spelling fits the usual pattern (movable,
> valuable, believable, ... with moveable accepted but dying), and it's
> definitely "caching" without the -e-, so it's probably a tempting
> mistake to make, but apparently we're making new words out of bits of
> French with the C preprocessor ## operator and ignoring all that.  I
> bet it's "cachable" en français though.  My Oxford Concise lists only
> the -e- form, so you have my vote.  The online Merriam-Webster (I
> think that's the main reference for US spelling?) doesn't list either
> and suggests I might be looking for cashable.

I tend to look to OneLook Dictionary Search:

https://www.onelook.com

Their set of dictionaries has multiple entries for "cacheable"
and only one for "cachable".  I don't agree that the latter is
wrong exactly, because some people evidently use it and English
has no Académie Française to legislate what is right; but it's
clearly the less common spelling.

            regards, tom lane

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 6:27 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks all for the clarification. Peter and Thomas expressed clear preference for "cacheable", and Tom confirmed it
isthe more common spelling. I just created a patch to replace all three occurrences accordingly. 

Pushed.  Thanks!

> On Nov 12, 2025, at 09:36, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 6:27 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks all for the clarification. Peter and Thomas expressed clear preference for "cacheable", and Tom confirmed it
isthe more common spelling. I just created a patch to replace all three occurrences accordingly. 
>
> Pushed.  Thanks!

Hi Thomas,

Thank you very much for taking care of this patch.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/