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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
