Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> writes:
>>> Oh no! We encountered one of the most difficult problems in computer
>>> science [1].
>> Indeed :-(. Looking at it again this morning, I'm thinking of
>> using "contain_mutable_functions_after_planning" --- what do you
>> think of that?
> It's better but creates an impression that the actual planning will be
> involved.
True, but from the perspective of the affected code, the question is
basically "did you call expression_planner() yet". So I like this
naming for that connection, whereas something based on "transformation"
doesn't really connect to anything in existing function names.
regards, tom lane