MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA5RZ0vkNBGmz_ffiKN8vqD9S2rWH=dLXOM9d3uqN+qhefHBxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202502131125.3kk6id4tcrtv@alvherre.pgsql>
In-Reply-To: <202502131125.3kk6id4tcrtv@alvherre.pgsql>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 10:44:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA5RZ0vnAdfJjAQQjxYLjS-zrkXBjwRrT=+uSFP7YPtWioErig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, 
	Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, 
	Marko M <marko@pganalyze.com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0vnAdfJjAQQjxYLjS-zrkXBjwRrT%3D%2BuSFP7YPtWioErig%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> I don't understand why we would change any naming here at all.  I think
> you should be looking at a much broader consensus and plus-ones that a
> renaming is needed.  -1 from me.

The reason for the change is because "query jumble" will no longer
make sense if the jumble code can now be used for other types of
trees, such as Plan.

I do agree that this needs a single-threaded discussion to achieve a
consensus.

--

Sami