> > The term "NOT_SET" makes me itch a little bit, even if there is an > > existing parallel with OverridingKind. Perhaps your proposal is OK, > > still how about "UNKNOWN" instead to use as term for the default? > +1 to "UNKNOWN".
We currently use both UNKNOWN and NOT_SET in different places. However, I'm okay with using UNKNOWN, and I've updated it in v16. > But generally, classification in the PlannedStmtOrigin structure seems a > little strange: a generic plan has a qualitative difference from any > custom one. And any other plan also will be generic or custom, doesn't > it? I am not sure I understand the reasoning here. Can you provide more details/ specific examples? -- Sami
v16-0001-Introduce-planOrigin-field-in-PlannedStmt-to-rep.patch
Description: Binary data
v16-0002-pg_stat_statements-Add-counters-for-generic-and-.patch
Description: Binary data
