MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Z5xTb5iBHVGns35R@paquier.xyz> <CAP53Pkw1QJHH9UDjkArS=XdAxtK7XWMpZLGHnVMDmhRTp_HYYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z5xgmgyV-wnzMpkO@paquier.xyz> <CAA5RZ0vM9AsEqvKued2drKZJ1opt3wbYaDbxGzi-khkNzwn7og@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z6Ks3ta5089DXiPc@paquier.xyz> <CAA5RZ0sfRbd1xcq_oHNA0TPr57yM8qkg-GoD6A0nUfyxZhs33Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53PkxocbNr+eRag3FEJp3-7S1U80FspOg8UQjO902TWMG=6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0u6yJdFL=p5vdpbZFS-2YY+Z6vtzmt4gejgZa3RcNiWMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z6lVcWdNQtgz9BGI@paquier.xyz> <CAA5RZ0t80hP2aTv97QtEJy39GkxKmDBVDiTBApfiuTa4O=TEWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z6vmYBgLRLXkx5fi@paquier.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <Z6vmYBgLRLXkx5fi@paquier.xyz>
From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:54:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKAnmmL3OhEg1p6EWR6tbAb1OcarnfRGARcmUut4Mp68VCNWjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Marko M <marko@pganalyze.com>, 
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdc674062de91177"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKAnmmL3OhEg1p6EWR6tbAb1OcarnfRGARcmUut4Mp68VCNWjg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000cdc674062de91177
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:08=E2=80=AFPM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xy=
z> 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 m=
y
> 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

--000000000000cdc674062de91177
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:08=E2=80=AFPM M=
ichael Paquier &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:michael@paquier.xyz">michael@paquier.x=
yz</a>&gt; wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:0=
2:10PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:<br>
&gt; I am OK with moving away from &quot;jumble&quot; in-lieu of something =
else, but my thoughts are we should actually call this process &quot;finger=
print&quot;<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree fingerprint is the right final wor=
d. But &quot;jumble&quot; conveys the *process* better than &quot;fingerpri=
nting&quot;. I view it as jumbling produces an object that can be fingerpri=
nted.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"=
>&gt; For node attributes we can specify &quot;fingerprint_ignore&quot; or =
&quot;no_fingerprint&quot;. What do you think?<br></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>Still should be jumble_ignore.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</di=
v><div>Greg</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=
=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>--</div><div>Crunchy Data - <a h=
ref=3D"https://www.crunchydata.com" target=3D"_blank">https://www.crunchyda=
ta.com</a></div><div>Enterprise Postgres Software Products &amp; Tech Suppo=
rt</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000cdc674062de91177--