On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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".
Not really. You could just store it once in shared memory, and put
the complexity in the view definition.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company