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.
> > 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.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.