On 11/01/2011 09:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column?
>> That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything.
> That would cost twice as much shared memory for query strings, and twice
> as much time to update the strings, for what seems pretty marginal
> value. I'm for just redefining the query field as "current or last
> query".
+1
> I could go either way on whether to rename it.
Rename it please. "current_query" will just be wrong. I'd be inclined
just to call it "query" or "query_string" and leave it to the docs to
define the exact semantics.
cheers
andrew