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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
