| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Marko M <marko(at)pganalyze(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query |
| Date: | 2025-02-12 02:54:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmmL3OhEg1p6EWR6tbAb1OcarnfRGARcmUut4Mp68VCNWjg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:08 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:02:10PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > I am OK with moving away from "jumble" in-lieu of something else, but my
> thoughts are we should actually call this process "fingerprint"
>
I agree fingerprint is the right final word. But "jumble" conveys the
*process* better than "fingerprinting". I view it as jumbling produces an
object that can be fingerprinted.
> For node attributes we can specify "fingerprint_ignore" or
> "no_fingerprint". What do you think?
>
Still should be jumble_ignore.
Cheers,
Greg
--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-02-12 02:57:46 | Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-02-12 02:24:21 | Re: Allow io_combine_limit up to 1MB |