I've always assumed it's a relative time -- not an absolute time, but not an
idle time either.
TTL wouldn't be the right thing to call it if it's an idle time, however, idle
time is fine with me (let's just call it "idle time"). --Ray
> I've always assumed that the TTL was an idle time, not an absolute time.
> I'm promising that I'll keep your result set for 300 seconds after the last
> time you've referenced it. Reference it again and you'll get another 300
> seconds. Does everyone agree with that?