Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I think the agreement was that dblink_current_query was to be
>>> implemented on top of this. In fact I don't see any reason not to.
>>
>> Really? It seemed like just duplicate functionality.
> It's called "backwards compatibility". The nice thing about it is that
> it doesn't cost us any extra code.
Indeed. It's just silly to break dblink users when there's no need.
>>> Also, wasn't the name supposed to be client_query?
>>
>> Because pg_stat_activity already has current_query (and no one has
>> complained about it) there was discussion to just make it current_query.
> I don't think you can call that an agreement. It was just a suggestion
> IIRC.
Well, there wasn't any strong consensus for client_query either ...
regards, tom lane