Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It might be possible to incorporate this pointer into PlannedStmt
>> instead of passing it separately.
> Yeah, that would be less churn. Though, I wonder if you still hold
> that PlannedStmt should not be scribbled upon outside the planner as
> you said upthread [1]?
Well, the whole point of that rule is that the executor can't modify
a plancache entry. If the plancache itself sets a field in such an
entry, that doesn't seem problematic from here.
But there's other possibilities if that bothers you; QueryDesc
could hold the field, for example. Also, I bet we'd want to copy
it into EState for the main initialization recursion.
regards, tom lane
