> On Apr 23, 2026, at 13:32, David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I thought of it, but didn't do it as it meant having to keep a bit > more state to track if we've filled the cache yet, plus the extra > costs incurred to check if we've done it yet that would have to be > paid for every NULL lookup. We currently have to check if the hash > table has been set up already, so I felt more comfortable installing > the new code in with that.
That makes sense to me. I agree that tying it to the existing hash-table setup is the simpler place to do it, and avoids adding extra state plus another check on each NULL lookup. So I am fine with keeping it as-is. -- Best regards, Chengpeng Yan
