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