Re: Path question

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Anybody have a strong feeling about what to call these things?
>> At the moment I'm leaning to sticking with MergeAppend, but if we
>> decide to rename it it'd probably be better to do so before committing.

> I don't like the idea of renaming the join nodes. Both the code churn
> and the possibility of confusing long-time users seem undesirable.

Yeah, especially if MergePath would still be there but now meaning
something different.

The other possible line of attack is to call the new node type something
else than either Merge or MergeAppend. Robert and I batted around a few
thoughts off-list last night, but none of them seemed any better than
MergeAppend.

regards, tom lane