On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 10:22:37PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > I think plan_node_id is probably the least controversial because that value > comes straight from core, and different extensions cannot have their own > interpretation of what that value could be.
Depends. An extension can plug in what they want. The point is that the key used to identify a single plan is up to what extensions think is relevant in a plan. That's heavily subject to interpretation. What's not really subject to interpretation is that an extension cannot know it should set and/or use as key identifier without something that some portion pf the code structures knows about, or these extensions have an inter-dependency. Anyway, there are also the arguments about the set timing, reset timing, the extended protocol argument, etc. So I've applied the patch for now, to start with something. > FWIW, Lukas did start a Wiki [0] to open the discussion for what parts > of the plan should be used to compute a plan_id, and maybe we can > in the future compite a plan_id in core by default. Let's see where this leads.. I suspect that this is going to take some time, assuming that we're ever able to settle on a clear definition. Perhaps we will, or perhaps we will not. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
