Sami Imseih <samims...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Perhaps CachedPlanType is
>> misnamed, though, would it be more suited to name that as a sort of
>> "origin" or "source" field concept? We want to know which which
>> source we have retrieved a plan that a PlannedStmt refers to.
> Hmm, I’m not sure I see this as an improvement. In my opinion,
> CachedPlanType is a clear name that describes its purpose.
I think Michael's got a point. As of HEAD there are seven different
places that are setting this to PLAN_CACHE_NONE; who's to say that
pg_stat_statements or some other extension might not wish to
distinguish some of those sources? At the very least, user-submitted
versus internally-generated queries might be an interesting
distinction. I don't have a concrete proposal for a different
categorization than what we've got, but it seems worth considering
while we still have the flexibility to change it easily.
regards, tom lane
