Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The alternative I was envisioning was to have it look at the
>> ActivePortal's query string. However, if you prefer to define the
>> function as returning the current client query, it's fine as-is.
>> We should make sure the documentation explains it like that however.
> Now that you told me about ActivePortal I have used that and it seems to
> work fine. Patch attached and applied; documentation updated.
Well, hold on a minute. I said that was an alternative to look at,
not that it was necessarily better. Can you define in words of one
syllable which queries will be exposed this way? I don't believe
it's "all of them".
regards, tom lane