> Sami Imseih <samimseih@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.
Sure, I get it now, I think. An example is the cached plan from a sql
in a utility statement of a prepared statement, as an example. right?
I can see that being useful, If I understood that correctly.
--
Sami
