Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl
Date: 2023-01-17 07:52:28
Message-ID: Y8ZTvD6nEqNttAHJ@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:43:44AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Ok, I understand now, and I agree with this approach over the opposite. I
> was confused because the snippet you showed above used "jumble_ignore", but
> your patch is correct as it uses "jumble_location".

Okay. I'll refresh the patch set so as we have only "jumble_ignore",
then, like v1, with preparatory patches for what you mentioned and
anything that comes into mind.

> That said, the term "jumble" is really weird, because in the sense that we
> are using it here it means, approximately, "to mix together", "to unify".
> So what we are doing with the Const nodes is really to *not* jumble the
> location, but for all other node types we are jumbling the location. At
> least that is my understanding.

I am quite familiar with this term, FWIW. That's what we've inherited
from the days where this has been introduced in pg_stat_statements.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2023-01-17 08:05:34 Re: The documentation for storage type 'plain' actually allows single byte header
Previous Message shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com 2023-01-17 07:46:06 RE: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication