On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the
>> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some
>> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that
>> should be fine.
>
> is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?
Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E
seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's
criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it seems to
me that we're not going to do that, assuming nothing changes.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services